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

fix mulitple unrelated resources #499

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 28, 2023
Merged

fix mulitple unrelated resources #499

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 28, 2023

Conversation

YiscahLevySilas1
Copy link
Collaborator

@YiscahLevySilas1 YiscahLevySilas1 commented Aug 28, 2023

PR Type:

Bug fix


PR Description:

This PR introduces a validation for the Service Account kind in the service account token mount rule. This is to ensure that only objects of kind "ServiceAccount" are processed, preventing unrelated resources from being erroneously connected as related resources. This addresses a bug where multiple objects that are not Service Accounts were connected as related resources.


PR Main Files Walkthrough:

rules/serviceaccount-token-mount/raw.rego: Added a condition to check if the kind of the object is "ServiceAccount" before proceeding with the rest of the rule logic. This ensures that only Service Accounts are processed by the rule.


User Description:

Overview

This PR validates the Service Account thus validating that the related resource is indeed related.
This fixes bug of multiple objects that are not SA that are connected as related resources.

Signed-off-by: YiscahLevySilas1 <[email protected]>
@codiumai-pr-agent-free
Copy link
Contributor

PR Analysis

  • 🎯 Main theme: Fixing a bug where unrelated resources were being erroneously connected as related resources.
  • 📝 PR summary: This PR introduces a validation for the Service Account kind in the service account token mount rule. This ensures that only objects of kind "ServiceAccount" are processed, preventing unrelated resources from being erroneously connected as related resources.
  • 📌 Type of PR: Bug fix
  • 🧪 Relevant tests added: No
  • 🔒 Security concerns: No security concerns found

PR Feedback

  • 💡 General suggestions: The PR seems to be addressing the bug effectively by adding a validation check for the kind of the object. However, it would be beneficial to add tests to ensure that the validation is working as expected and to prevent future regressions.

  • 🤖 Code feedback:

    • relevant file: rules/serviceaccount-token-mount/raw.rego
      suggestion: Consider adding a validation error message when the kind of the object is not "ServiceAccount". This will help in debugging if any issues arise related to this validation. [medium]
      relevant line: sa.kind == "ServiceAccount"

How to use

To invoke the PR-Agent, add a comment using one of the following commands:
/review [-i]: Request a review of your Pull Request. For an incremental review, which only considers changes since the last review, include the '-i' option.
/describe: Modify the PR title and description based on the contents of the PR.
/improve [--extended]: Suggest improvements to the code in the PR. Extended mode employs several calls, and provides a more thorough feedback.
/ask <QUESTION>: Pose a question about the PR.
/update_changelog: Update the changelog based on the PR's contents.

To edit any configuration parameter from configuration.toml, add --config_path=new_value
For example: /review --pr_reviewer.extra_instructions="focus on the file: ..."
To list the possible configuration parameters, use the /config command.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Summary:

  • License scan: failure
  • Credentials scan: success
  • Vulnerabilities scan: failure
  • Unit test: success
  • Go linting: success

@YiscahLevySilas1 YiscahLevySilas1 merged commit 10bbaf7 into master Aug 28, 2023
26 checks passed
@YiscahLevySilas1 YiscahLevySilas1 deleted the fix/C-0261 branch February 11, 2024 09:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants