-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 580
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
✨ Look up official EKS AMI when appropriate #1817
✨ Look up official EKS AMI when appropriate #1817
Conversation
0b70aaf
to
1548531
Compare
1548531
to
524aa97
Compare
898ef8a
to
b1de831
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changes look pretty sane to me. This doesn't introduce any permissions issues if someone is running this against a non-eks managed cluster but does not have ssm permissions, does it?
/retitle [WIP] ✨ Look up official EKS AMI when appropriate |
b1de831
to
b49475a
Compare
@@ -147,6 +147,15 @@ func (t Template) controllersPolicy() *iamv1.PolicyDocument { | |||
"secretsmanager:TagResource", | |||
}, | |||
}, | |||
{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After you've rebased, this should go behind the EKS flags.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any precedence for feature flags in clusterawsadm yet?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, misspoke. I meant the flag in terms of t.Spec.ClusterAPIControllers.EKS.Enable
at https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-aws/blob/master/cmd/clusterawsadm/cloudformation/bootstrap/cluster_api_controller.go#L149 than a -- features
thing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
done
Looks fine other than the rebasing. |
b49475a
to
949bffb
Compare
949bffb
to
81502b0
Compare
81502b0
to
275d93e
Compare
|
275d93e
to
27c055d
Compare
Ok, fixed up those template tests. |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: randomvariable The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/unhold |
What this PR does / why we need it:
This adds a lookup for the official EKS AMI.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)
format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #1778
This is WIP until #1724 goes in. Will be using those types to determine if using the EKS AMI is appropriate. I'll also need some additional changes when #1810 goes in.
Also still working on finding the right IAM updates. I'm having an obnoxiously difficult time getting a policy statement that is properly scoped. Wildcards are not appropriate at all for SSM Parameter Store.