metrics-server
metrics-server copied to clipboard
kubernetes-sigs
feat(helm chart): Add metrics-server hardening options
What this PR does / why we need it:
It adds options on howto secure the connection between metrics-server and the kube-apiserver.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
related to:
- #545
- #1230
Resolves #1230
Additional info: The accepted FR #1230 is implemented also as I need this to test the hardening feature.
/cc: @serathius
The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.
- :white_check_mark: login: mkilchhofer / name: Marco Kilchhofer (0f4d76f02c98b581e010c6f34dc0b7cdea459a18)
![linux-foundation-easycla[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/17893?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Welcome @mkilchhofer!
It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/metrics-server 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.
You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.
You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/metrics-server has its own contribution guidelines.
You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.
If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!
Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. :smiley:
Hi @mkilchhofer. Thanks for your PR.
I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.
Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.
I understand the commands that are listed here.
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: mkilchhofer Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign serathius for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
- There is no need to run functions for the APIService if it's not enabled
How do you mean that? The genSelfSignedCert function?
- The
helmmode would be a better default (see below)
Sure, will do
- You don't need to recreate the cert on each Helm install, you can look up the existing secret
I think we should not rely on the lookup function. There are GitOps solutions in the wild which only use helm for rendering (helm template subcommand). The lookup function of helm returns nothing during template as it cannot talk to the kubeapi by design. Only upgrade or install talks to the apiserver.
- I don't think the chart should support creating a secret, the secret option should only be existing
Hmm why not? It is pretty common that helm charts support this.
- Please remove the
extraObjectsvalue, this isn't a "good" pattern
How can I test the existing secret method then? I think it is an approved feature request, so contributors can file PRs for this, ref:
- #1230
-> See label
triage/accepted
How do you mean that? The genSelfSignedCert function?
You moved the test for if the APIService was enabled below the new code.
I think we should not rely on the lookup function. There are GitOps solutions in the wild which only use helm for rendering (helm template subcommand). The lookup function of helm returns nothing during template as it cannot talk to the kubeapi by design. Only upgrade or install talks to the apiserver.
In that case they can use one of the other patterns, GitOps shouldn't define architecture it should support best practice.
Hmm why not? It is pretty common that helm charts support this.
Because it's unnecessary and leaks data into the chart values.
How can I test the existing secret method then? I think it is an approved feature request, so contributors can file PRs for this, ref:
We could add a test secret as part or the CI initialisation or it could be generated through the chart as a testing resource.
Because it's unnecessary and leaks data into the chart values.
Well, why is that an issue? This is how helm is designed for. These values are stored as a K8s secret.
Well, why is that an issue? This is how helm is designed for. These values are stored as a K8s secret.
It's the unnecessary part which is the primary concern here; but the Helm implementation and increased surface area for secret information shouldn't be discounted as unimportant.
But as I've said in my other replies you can easily extend this chart by creating a wrapper chart which depends on it and at which point you can make your own architectural decisions.
PR needs rebase.
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.
This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the PR is closed
You can:
- Mark this PR as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle stale - Close this PR with
/close - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
