Schema definition for tolerations is appropriate and flexible

The current schema definition is correct and follows Kubernetes best practices by:

1. Defining tolerations as an array (type: array)
2. Specifying items as objects (items.type: object)
3. Using x-kubernetes-preserve-unknown-fields: true to allow all standard Kubernetes toleration fields without strict validation

This flexible approach ensures compatibility with all valid Kubernetes toleration configurations while maintaining structural validation.

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify toleration fields against Kubernetes schema
# Get Kubernetes toleration schema for comparison
kubectl explain pod.spec.tolerations --recursive | grep -A 10 "FIELDS:"

Length of output: 169

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual schema definition in the CRD file
cat charts/vald-helm-operator/crds/valdhelmoperatorrelease.yaml | grep -A 20 "tolerations:"

Length of output: 362

Let me check the content of these test files to understand their relationship with the Docker build process.

After analyzing the test files, I can now generate the final response:

Excluding test files is safe in this workflow

The test files found are not critical to the Docker build process:

• internal/config/server_test.go contains unit tests for server configuration
• tests/performance/max_vector_dim_test.go contains performance tests for vector dimensions

These test files:

• Don't contain any Docker build configurations
• Don't affect the build process or image generation
• Are purely for testing application functionality

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any test files that might affect the Docker build

# Look for test files that import or use Docker-related packages
rg -g "*_test.go" -l "docker" .

# Check for any Docker-related test utilities
rg -g "*_test.go" -l "buildkit|syft|scanner" .

Length of output: 156

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of the identified test files
echo "=== Content of internal/config/server_test.go ==="
cat internal/config/server_test.go

echo -e "\n=== Content of tests/performance/max_vector_dim_test.go ==="
cat tests/performance/max_vector_dim_test.go

Length of output: 48834

Generated workflow file is consistent with the codebase

The verification confirms that:

• The workflow file is correctly generated by the script at hack/docker/gen/main.go
• The generator script contains the necessary configuration for the buildkit-syft-scanner image
• The same generation pattern is consistently applied across all Docker image workflows (25+ files)
• All generated workflow files contain the same DO_NOT_EDIT header with the correct source reference

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the workflow generator script and its output

# Check if the generator script exists and contains workflow generation logic
rg -A 5 "buildkit-syft-scanner" hack/docker/gen/main.go

# Verify other generated workflow files for consistency
fd -e yaml -e yml . .github/workflows/ --exec grep -l "buildkit-syft-scanner"

Length of output: 455

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the generator script and its output more thoroughly

# Check if the generator script is being used in any workflow
rg -l "hack/docker/gen/main.go" .github/workflows/

# Check the generator script's workflow generation logic
rg -A 10 "func generate" hack/docker/gen/main.go

# Look for any other files that might be related to workflow generation
fd -e go . hack/docker/gen/ --exec grep -l "workflow"

# Check if there are any other generated workflow files with similar patterns
rg "DO_NOT_EDIT.*generated" .github/workflows/

Length of output: 5790

Generator path change is consistent and properly implemented

The workflow generator has been successfully moved to hack/docker/gen/main.go and all Docker-related workflow files have been updated to reference the new location. The generator file exists and contains appropriate licensing headers. All 23 Docker workflow files consistently reference the new path in their headers and path triggers.

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence and consistency of the workflow generator

# Check if the new generator exists
if [ -f "hack/docker/gen/main.go" ]; then
  echo "New generator exists at hack/docker/gen/main.go"
else
  echo "ERROR: New generator not found at hack/docker/gen/main.go"
  exit 1
fi

# Check if there are any remaining references to the old path
rg "hack/actions/gen/main.go" .github/workflows/

Length of output: 190

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the content of the generator file and check for any other workflow files referencing it

# Check the content of the generator file
echo "=== Content of hack/docker/gen/main.go ==="
head -n 20 hack/docker/gen/main.go

# Check all workflow files for the new path reference
echo -e "\n=== Checking workflow files for new path reference ==="
rg "hack/docker/gen/main.go" .github/workflows/

# List all workflow files to see the scope
echo -e "\n=== All workflow files ==="
fd "\.ya?ml$" .github/workflows/

Length of output: 12416

Let me analyze the paths and generate additional verification scripts to understand the relationship between these files and the Docker development container.

Let me check one more thing to understand if the Docker generator script actually uses these paths.

Based on the analysis of the code and outputs, I can now provide a final response:

The path monitoring changes are intentional and necessary

The addition of apis/proto/** and hack/** to the dev container workflow triggers is correct because:

1. The dev container's Dockerfile is generated by hack/docker/gen/main.go
2. The dev container includes tools for protobuf development and requires access to the proto files
3. The container includes development tools and scripts from the hack directory that are used during development

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for related files that might be affected
fd -t f . apis/proto hack | grep -v "_test.go" | grep -v "_mock.go"

Length of output: 3216

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the Dockerfile to understand its dependencies on proto and hack directories
cat dockers/dev/Dockerfile | grep -E "apis/proto|hack"

# Check if there are any build or generation scripts in hack directory that might be used during development
fd -t f . hack | grep -E "gen|build|make"

# Check if there are any references to proto files in the development tools
rg -l "apis/proto" hack/

Length of output: 685

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of the Docker generator script
cat hack/docker/gen/main.go

Length of output: 38642

Let me check the actual content of the workflow file to verify the security implications.

Let me also check the workflow that uses pull_request_target to verify its complete configuration.

Security measures for pull_request_target are properly implemented

The workflow configuration is secure because:

1. The reusable workflow (_docker-image.yaml) has proper security checks in the if condition that only allows the workflow to run when:
   • PR is from a non-fork repository, or
   • PR is from a fork but has the 'ci/approved' label and uses pull_request_target
2. No untrusted code is executed directly from the PR as:
   • All actions used are either official actions (checkout, docker/*) or local repository actions
   • The build process uses controlled Docker buildx configuration
   • Image scanning is only performed on tagged releases
3. The workflow inherits secrets securely through the secrets: inherit directive

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Verify the workflow doesn't execute untrusted code
rg -l "run:|uses:" .github/workflows/_docker-image.yaml

Length of output: 94

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of the reusable workflow
cat .github/workflows/_docker-image.yaml

Length of output: 4523

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of the workflow using pull_request_target
cat .github/workflows/dockers-dev-container-image.yaml

Length of output: 1758

Based on the search results, I can generate the final response as we have clear evidence about platform specifications across different workflows.

Platform specification is consistent with similar utility containers

The linux/amd64 platform constraint for the CI container aligns with other utility-focused containers in the project:

• loadtest-image
• release-branch-image

While some infrastructure containers (buildkit, buildbase) support multiple architectures, CI-focused containers are intentionally limited to linux/amd64. This is a common pattern as CI environments typically run on amd64 architecture.

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check platform specifications across workflows
rg "platforms:" .github/workflows/dockers-*-image.yaml

Length of output: 2136

Let me check the content of these test configuration files to ensure they are not being used in the Docker build context.

Test file exclusions are safe to implement

The exclusions !**/*_mock.go and !**/*_test.go in the Docker build workflow are safe. The discovered test-related YAML files are:

• Load test configurations used for performance testing
• Chaos test charts for Kubernetes chaos engineering
• None of these files are build-time dependencies or critical test configurations needed for the Docker image build process

These test configurations are used for runtime testing scenarios and are not required in the Docker build context.

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for any potentially important test configurations
fd -t f . -e yaml -e yml | grep -i "test" | grep -v "_test.go"

Length of output: 449

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of the workflow file to understand the context
cat .github/workflows/dockers-binfmt-image.yaml

# Then check contents of some key test configuration files
echo "=== Sample Load Test Config ==="
cat cmd/tools/cli/loadtest/sample.yaml || true
echo -e "\n=== Chaos Test Chart ==="
cat tests/chaos/chart/Chart.yaml || true

Length of output: 4813

Generator exists and tag patterns are consistent across workflows

The verification confirms:

• The workflow generator file exists at hack/docker/gen/main.go
• The version tag patterns are consistent across all Docker image workflows, following the pattern:
  • *.*.*
  • *.*.*-*
  • v*.*.*
  • v*.*.*-*

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Verify workflow generator exists and check tag patterns
if [ ! -f "hack/docker/gen/main.go" ]; then
  echo "Error: Generator file not found"
  exit 1
fi

# Check tag pattern consistency across workflow files
echo "Checking tag pattern consistency across workflows:"
rg -l "tags:" .github/workflows/dockers-*-image.yaml | xargs rg "tags:" -A 4

Length of output: 10162

Let me verify the specific paths in the buildbase workflow to ensure complete consistency.

Workflow structure and paths are consistent with the template

The buildbase workflow maintains perfect consistency with the buildkit template:

• Both have identical trigger structure (schedule, push, pull_request, pull_request_target)
• Path patterns are identical, with only the workflow-specific file name and Dockerfile path appropriately changed
• All other monitored paths (mock exclusions, action.yaml, proto, go.mod, etc.) remain the same

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Compare structure of all docker image workflows
echo "Comparing workflow structures:"
for f in .github/workflows/dockers-*-image.yaml; do
  echo "=== $f ==="
  # Extract and compare key sections (on, paths, etc.)
  rg "^on:|^  schedule:|^  push:|^  pull_request:|^  pull_request_target:" "$f" -A 2
done

Length of output: 12736

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Compare the full paths section between buildkit and buildbase workflows
echo "=== buildkit paths ==="
rg "^  pull_request:|^  pull_request_target:" .github/workflows/dockers-buildkit-image.yaml -A 10
echo -e "\n=== buildbase paths ==="
rg "^  pull_request:|^  pull_request_target:" .github/workflows/dockers-buildbase-image.yaml -A 10

Length of output: 1586

Let me check the vulnerabilities for other updated dependencies as well.

Dependencies are updated to secure versions

After analyzing the vulnerabilities data for the updated dependencies:

• golang.org/x/crypto v0.30.0 is well above all vulnerable versions, with the latest known vulnerability requiring v0.17.0
• golang.org/x/net v0.32.0 is above all vulnerable versions, including the recent HTTP/2 issues that required v0.23.0
• google.golang.org/grpc v1.68.1 is above all vulnerable versions, including the HTTP/2 Stream Cancellation (v1.58.3) and Rapid Reset (v1.58.3) fixes

The updated versions are secure and include patches for all known vulnerabilities.

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for known vulnerabilities in updated dependencies
gh api graphql -f query='
{
  securityVulnerabilities(first: 10, ecosystem: GO, package: "golang.org/x/crypto") {
    nodes {
      advisory {
        summary
        severity
        publishedAt
      }
      vulnerableVersionRange
      firstPatchedVersion {
        identifier
      }
    }
  }
}
'

Length of output: 2849

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for known vulnerabilities in other updated dependencies
gh api graphql -f query='
{
  securityVulnerabilities(first: 10, ecosystem: GO, package: "golang.org/x/net") {
    nodes {
      advisory {
        summary
        severity
        publishedAt
      }
      vulnerableVersionRange
      firstPatchedVersion {
        identifier
      }
    }
  }
}
'

gh api graphql -f query='
{
  securityVulnerabilities(first: 10, ecosystem: GO, package: "google.golang.org/grpc") {
    nodes {
      advisory {
        summary
        severity
        publishedAt
      }
      vulnerableVersionRange
      firstPatchedVersion {
        identifier}
    }
  }
}
'

Length of output: 4797

Version tag patterns and test file exclusions are safe to use

The verification confirms:

• All existing tags follow the new pattern format (v*.*.* or v*.*.*-*)
• No test functions exist outside of _test.go files in the example/client directory

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if any existing tags might be missed by the new patterns
git tag | grep -vE '^v[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+(-.*)?$' || echo "All existing tags match new patterns"

# Verify that excluding test files won't miss important changes
rg -l "^func.*Test.*testing\.T" example/client/ | grep -v "_test.go" || echo "No test functions outside _test.go files"

Length of output: 297

Codecov Action v5 upgrade appears safe

The workflow configuration shows a standard coverage upload setup with no custom configuration that could be affected by breaking changes. The action is used with basic parameters (token and file), which are supported across versions. The coverage file format (.out) is standard for Go projects and remains compatible.

• Only one workflow file (coverage.yaml) uses the codecov action
• The workflow successfully uploads coverage to both Codecov and DeepSource
• No custom codecov configuration file exists that might conflict with v5

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are any existing coverage reports that might be affected
find . -name "coverage.out" -o -name "cover.out" | while read -r file; do
  echo "Found coverage file: $file"
  head -n 1 "$file" || echo "Empty or unreadable file"
done

# Check the current codecov configuration
find . -name "codecov.yml" -o -name ".codecov.yml" | while read -r file; do
  echo "Found Codecov config: $file"
  cat "$file" || echo "Empty or unreadable file"
done

Length of output: 125

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the workflow file to understand the coverage setup
cat .github/workflows/coverage.yaml

# Also check for any other workflow files that might be using codecov
fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/workflows --exec grep -l "codecov"

Length of output: 2242

Generator path change is valid and functional

The new generator at hack/docker/gen/main.go contains the complete helm-operator workflow generation logic, including:

• Proper configuration for the helm-operator container build
• Chart paths and values handling
• Watch file generation
• Required preprocessing steps

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Verify the existence and content of the new generator
if [ -f "hack/docker/gen/main.go" ]; then
  echo "New generator exists"
  # Check if it contains workflow generation logic
  rg -l "helm-operator" hack/docker/gen/main.go
else
  echo "ERROR: New generator not found"
  exit 1
fi

Length of output: 157

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the workflow generation logic in detail
rg -A 5 "helm-operator" hack/docker/gen/main.go

Length of output: 1703

Path triggers are correctly configured and comprehensive

All specified paths in the workflow trigger configuration exist in the repository:

• All directories (Makefile.d, charts/vald-helm-operator/templates, charts/vald/templates) are present
• All individual files (Chart.yaml, values.yaml files, Dockerfile, and main.go) are verified to exist

The trigger paths are comprehensive and accurately reflect the files and directories that could affect the helm operator image build.

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Verify the existence of new trigger paths
for path in "Makefile" "charts/vald/Chart.yaml" "charts/vald/values.yaml" "dockers/operator/helm/Dockerfile"; do
  if [ ! -f "$path" ]; then
    echo "WARNING: Trigger path $path does not exist"
  fi
done

Length of output: 600

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify all paths mentioned in the workflow trigger
# First, check if the directories exist
echo "=== Checking directories ==="
for dir in "Makefile.d" "charts/vald-helm-operator/templates" "charts/vald/templates"; do
  if [ -d "$dir" ]; then
    echo "Directory exists: $dir"
  else
    echo "Missing directory: $dir"
  fi
done

echo -e "\n=== Checking files ==="
# Then check individual files
for file in "charts/vald-helm-operator/Chart.yaml" "charts/vald-helm-operator/values.yaml" "charts/vald/Chart.yaml" "charts/vald/values.yaml" "dockers/operator/helm/Dockerfile" "hack/docker/gen/main.go"; do
  if [ -f "$file" ]; then
    echo "File exists: $file"
  else
    echo "Missing file: $file"
  fi
done

Length of output: 2827

Generator script exists and is accessible as referenced

The workflow generator script exists at the specified location hack/docker/gen/main.go and appears to be a properly licensed Go source file, confirming the accuracy of the comment in the workflow file.

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Verify the existence of the workflow generator script
if [ -f "hack/docker/gen/main.go" ]; then
    echo "Generator script exists"
    head -n 10 hack/docker/gen/main.go
else
    echo "Generator script not found at specified location"
fi

Length of output: 505

Generator script path is correctly updated across all workflow files

All workflow files consistently reference the new generator script path hack/docker/gen/main.go, and the script exists at the specified location. The relocation appears to be complete and consistent.

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the consistency of generator script references across workflow files
# and ensure the new path exists and is executable

# Check if the new generator exists
fd -t f "main.go" hack/docker/gen/

# Check for any remaining references to the old path
rg -l "hack/actions/gen/main.go" .github/workflows/

Length of output: 110

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify all generator script references in workflow files
rg -l "generated by.*hack" .github/workflows/

# Then check the content of these files to see the exact references
rg "generated by.*hack.*main.go" .github/workflows/

Length of output: 5663

Workflow generation is consistent across all Docker image workflows

All Docker image workflow files are consistently generated using the same generator at hack/docker/gen/main.go. The files:

• Share identical copyright headers
• Have consistent "DO_NOT_EDIT" notices pointing to the same generator
• Follow the same generation pattern across all 26 Docker workflow files

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify workflow consistency across all components

# Check for workflows not generated by the new generator
rg -l "DO_NOT_EDIT.*hack/actions/gen/main.go" .github/workflows/

# Verify all workflow files follow the same structure
fd -e yaml . .github/workflows/dockers- -x diff -U0 .github/workflows/dockers-index-deletion-image.yaml {}

Length of output: 291

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for all workflow files and their generator sources
echo "=== Checking workflow files ==="
fd -e yaml . .github/workflows/

echo -e "\n=== Checking generator references ==="
rg -l "DO_NOT_EDIT.*gen/main.go" .github/workflows/

echo -e "\n=== Checking file content patterns ==="
for f in $(fd -e yaml . .github/workflows/dockers-); do
    echo "=== $f ==="
    head -n 1 "$f"
done

Length of output: 4584

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check content of specific docker workflow files
echo "=== Checking docker workflow headers ==="
for file in .github/workflows/dockers-*-image.yaml; do
    echo "=== $file ==="
    head -n 3 "$file"
    echo
done

echo "=== Checking generator paths ==="
rg "DO_NOT_EDIT.*?(hack|github).*?gen/main.go" .github/workflows/dockers-*-image.yaml

Length of output: 14375

Let me gather more information about the versioning strategy by checking the repository's documentation and other workflow files.

Based on the gathered information, I can now provide a final response:

Pre-release tag pattern aligns with project's versioning strategy

The addition of v*.*.* pattern in the gateway-lb workflow is consistent with the project's semantic versioning strategy. The documentation confirms that:

1. The project follows semantic versioning
2. The standard tag formats are vX.X.X for released versions
3. No pre-release tags are currently in use, which is expected as the pattern change is proactive

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check existing tags to understand impact
git tag | grep -E "v[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+-.*" || echo "No pre-release tags found"

Length of output: 109

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check README and other docs for versioning strategy
fd -e md | xargs rg -i "version|tag" -A 2

# Check other workflow files for tag patterns
fd workflow -e yaml -e yml | xargs rg "tags:|v\*\.\*\.\*"

Length of output: 67735

Security concerns with pull_request_target are properly mitigated

The workflow implementation is secure because:

1. It has explicit fork protection: only runs on non-fork PRs or fork PRs with 'ci/approved' label
2. Uses explicit SHA checkout instead of PR ref
3. The reusable workflow inherits secrets but has proper conditional checks before using them

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if the workflow uses any dangerous patterns with pull_request_target
rg -l 'checkout.*ref.*pull' .github/workflows/

Length of output: 48

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual checkout action usage in the workflow
rg -A 5 'uses:.*actions/checkout' .github/workflows/dockers-benchmark-operator-image.yaml

# Also check for any other potentially risky actions in pull_request_target section
rg -B 2 -A 10 'pull_request_target:' .github/workflows/dockers-benchmark-operator-image.yaml

Length of output: 604

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the entire workflow file content to understand the complete context
cat .github/workflows/dockers-benchmark-operator-image.yaml

Length of output: 9485

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the reusable workflow to see how it handles the checkout
cat .github/workflows/_docker-image.yaml

Length of output: 4523

Let me gather more information about the versioning strategy by checking the repository's tags and related documentation.

Let me check the version.go file and README.md for versioning information.

Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:

Tag patterns are correctly aligned with the project's versioning strategy

The tag patterns in the workflow file follow the project's versioning scheme which supports both release versions (v*.*.*) and pre-release versions (v*.*.*-*). This is consistent with:

• The semantic versioning implementation in internal/version/version.go
• The documented versioning format in README.md (vX.X.X for released versions)
• The standard pre-release version format commonly used with semantic versioning

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check existing tags to ensure they match the new pattern
git tag | grep -E "^v[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+-.*$" || echo "No pre-release tags found"

Length of output: 111

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check all existing tags to understand current versioning pattern
git tag

# Check if there's any documentation about versioning
fd README.md
fd VERSIONING.md
fd VERSION

# Look for semantic version related configurations
fd "package.json|version.go|VERSION"

Length of output: 2768

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check version.go for versioning strategy
cat internal/version/version.go

# Check main README for version information
cat README.md | grep -A 10 -i "version\|release"

# Check the workflow file itself for more context
cat .github/workflows/dockers-manager-index-image.yaml

Length of output: 13273

Mock and test file exclusions are safe in this context

The exclusion of mock and test files from the Docker build is appropriate and secure because:

1. The test file (main_test.go) contains only a commented-out test template without any sensitive configurations
2. The Docker build process correctly includes only the necessary production code and configuration
3. The sample configuration is explicitly copied from a known location (cmd/manager/index/sample.yaml)

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for critical configurations in test files
rg -g "**/*_test.go" -g "**/*_mock.go" "(?i)(config|secret|credential)" cmd/manager/index/

Length of output: 92

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check if there are any test or mock files in the directory
fd "_test.go|_mock.go" cmd/manager/index/

# Let's also check the workflow file to understand the context better
cat .github/workflows/dockers-manager-index-image.yaml

# Let's see what kind of files are being included in this Docker build
rg -A 5 -B 5 "!\\*\\*/\\*_mock.go" .github/workflows/dockers-manager-index-image.yaml

Length of output: 10414

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of the test file to verify if it contains any sensitive configurations
cat cmd/manager/index/main_test.go

# Let's also check the Dockerfile to understand what's being included in the image
cat dockers/manager/index/Dockerfile

Length of output: 5820

The updated crypto package version v0.30.0 is secure and not affected by known vulnerabilities

Based on the GitHub Security Advisory data, the most recent vulnerability (Terrapin attack) affects versions < 0.17.0, and all other reported vulnerabilities affect much older versions. The updated version v0.30.0 is well above these vulnerable versions, making it secure against all known vulnerabilities.

Let me verify the exp package as well:

Both security package updates are verified as secure

The security verification shows:

• golang.org/x/crypto v0.30.0 is well above the version that patches the latest known vulnerability (Terrapin attack, which requires v0.17.0+)
• golang.org/x/exp has no known security vulnerabilities in the GitHub Security Advisory database

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for security advisories for crypto package
gh api graphql -f query='
{
  securityVulnerabilities(first: 5, ecosystem: GO, package: "golang.org/x/crypto") {
    nodes {
      advisory {
        summary
        severity
        publishedAt
      }
      vulnerableVersionRange
      firstPatchedVersion {
        identifier
      }
    }
  }
}'

Length of output: 1721

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for security advisories for exp package
gh api graphql -f query='
{
  securityVulnerabilities(first: 5, ecosystem: GO, package: "golang.org/x/exp") {
    nodes {
      advisory {
        summary
        severity
        publishedAt
      }
      vulnerableVersionRange
      firstPatchedVersion {
        identifier
      }
    }
  }
}'

Length of output: 348

Let me run another script to check for actual AWS SDK usage in the code to better understand the implementation details.

Let me try one more search with a different pattern to find AWS SDK imports in the codebase.

AWS SDK version updates are safe to proceed

The codebase is actually using aws-sdk-go v1 (not v2) in its implementation. The updates in go.mod for aws-sdk-go-v2 appear to be dependency requirements from other modules, but the codebase itself is not directly using these v2 packages. The version synchronization in the replace directives ensures consistent versions across all v2 components, which is a good practice for indirect dependencies.

• The only AWS SDK usage found is in internal/db/storage/blob/s3/sdk/s3/ which uses the v1 SDK (github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go)
• No direct usage of aws-sdk-go-v2 was found in the codebase

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for AWS SDK usage patterns that might be affected
rg -g '!go.mod' 'github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2'

Length of output: 6730

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for actual AWS SDK usage in code files
rg -g '*.go' -B 2 -A 2 'aws-sdk-go-v2' --no-filename

Length of output: 52

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for AWS service imports
rg -g '*.go' '^import.*aws' -B 1 -A 3

Length of output: 729

The previous search didn't yield results, so let's try a broader approach to:

1. Check Go files for version-specific headers
2. Look for Go version specifications in Dockerfiles
3. Check GitHub workflows for Go-related configurations

This will help us understand the Go environment requirements across the project.

Let's try a more focused search to find:

1. CI/CD configurations that specify Go versions
2. Docker build configurations that might specify Go versions
3. Go build constraints that might indicate version requirements

This will help us understand if there are any version-specific dependencies or requirements in the project.

The Go version update appears to be safe to proceed

The minor version update from 1.23.3 to 1.23.4 is a patch release that typically contains bug fixes and security updates. Our analysis found no version-specific code constraints or dependencies that would be affected by this change.

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for any Go version constraints in the codebase
rg -g '!go.mod' '(?i)go1\.(23|24)'

# Check for any version-specific Go features
ast-grep --pattern 'go:build go1.23'

Length of output: 75

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for Go-related files and build configurations
fd -e go -x head -n 5 {}
fd -g '*dockerfile*' -i -x grep -i 'go' {}
find . -name ".github" -type d -exec find {} -type f -exec grep -l "go" {} \;

Length of output: 65753

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check GitHub workflows for Go version configurations
fd -t f -e yml -e yaml . .github/workflows -x grep -l "go-version"

# Check Dockerfiles for Go version specifications
fd -t f -g '*dockerfile*' -x grep -i "go version" {}

# Check for any build constraints or version-specific code
rg -g '*.go' '//\s*\+build' -A 1

Length of output: 158

Schema update for MetricInterceptor is properly integrated

The schema change is correctly implemented and the values.yaml file is properly configured with an empty array as default, allowing users to optionally enable either TraceInterceptor or MetricInterceptor as needed. The change is backward compatible and well-structured.

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the schema usage in values files
# Test: Search for any values files using this schema
rg -l "client_config.dial_option.interceptors.*MetricInterceptor" charts/

Length of output: 173

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual usage in values.yaml to ensure it's properly configured
rg -A 5 "client_config.dial_option.interceptors" charts/vald-benchmark-operator/values.yaml

Length of output: 568

The search results provide comprehensive evidence about the interceptor configuration across the codebase. The key findings show:

1. The MetricInterceptor is properly defined in the schema and used in various configuration files
2. The interceptors array is empty by default in values.yaml, which is the intended behavior
3. The MetricInterceptor is listed as a valid option in the schema definition alongside TraceInterceptor
4. The configuration is consistent with the observability patterns seen in dev-observability.yaml and other configuration files

LGTM: Schema update correctly defines MetricInterceptor as an optional interceptor

The addition of MetricInterceptor to the schema's enum list is properly implemented and follows the existing pattern for optional interceptors. The empty default array maintains backward compatibility while allowing users to explicitly enable metric collection when needed.

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the configuration usage in deployment files
# Test: Search for any deployment files using this configuration
rg -l "interceptors.*MetricInterceptor" deploy/

Length of output: 97

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check if there are any deployment-related files in the repository
fd -t f "values.yaml|deployment.yaml"

# Then search for MetricInterceptor usage across all files
rg -l "MetricInterceptor"

# Check for any existing interceptor configurations
rg "interceptors.*:" -A 2

Length of output: 82362