Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

kubelet-rubber-stamp is incompatible with K8s v1.22 #40

Open
shosti opened this issue Aug 14, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

kubelet-rubber-stamp is incompatible with K8s v1.22 #40

shosti opened this issue Aug 14, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@shosti
Copy link

shosti commented Aug 14, 2021

Since upgrading a cluster to v1.22, kubelet-rubber-stamp gets into a crash loop with errors like the following:

I0814 01:45:21.588169       1 main.go:19] Go Version: go1.11.13
I0814 01:45:21.588208       1 main.go:20] Go OS/Arch: linux/amd64
I0814 01:45:21.588217       1 main.go:21] operator-sdk Version: v0.4.0
I0814 01:45:23.097597       1 main.go:49] Registering Components.
I0814 01:45:23.100022       1 main.go:61] Starting the Cmd.
F0814 01:45:26.095171       1 main.go:64] no matches for kind "CertificateSigningRequest" in version "certificates.k8s.io/v1beta1"

Presumably this is because the beta APIs have been removed and need to be replaced with the v1 APIs.

@roylkng
Copy link

roylkng commented Aug 18, 2021

getting the same error, I think it is because of client-go version. I tried updating client-go module version manually but the build is failing because of dependency.
Somebody can suggest the versions in sync for the following modules
github.com/operator-framework/operator-sdk ? k8s.io/api v0.22.0-rc.0 k8s.io/apimachinery v0.22.0-rc.0 k8s.io/client-go v0.22.0-rc.0 k8s.io/klog v1.0.0 sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime ?

@sdlarsen
Copy link

Any chance of getting #41 merged anytime soon? Or would another solution be preferred?

@clementnuss
Copy link

maybe this other project I wrote is worth checking? https://github.com/postfinance/kubelet-csr-approver
should provide the same functionality with more secure checks than this project.
feedback on this welcome :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants