feat: add dynamic secret API#4667
Merged
Merged
Conversation
dolanor
force-pushed
the
dynamic-secrets
branch
from
c320da9 to
0f1f580
Compare
Closed
dolanor
force-pushed
the
dynamic-secrets
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2e7b00f to
1de281b
Compare
jlongtine
reviewed
Feb 28, 2023
dolanor
force-pushed
the
dynamic-secrets
branch
8 times, most recently
from
b5f16c1 to
647a557
Compare
dolanor
force-pushed
the
dynamic-secrets
branch
2 times, most recently
from
9972261 to
944e2ec
Compare
dolanor
force-pushed
the
dynamic-secrets
branch
from
944e2ec to
3a11eb1
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
The current implementation of this secret use a new encoding instead of reusing the payload encoding. It works and passes tests. |
Contributor
Author
|
Finally found the problem, will update this one. Hopefully tonight. |
dolanor
force-pushed
the
dynamic-secrets
branch
4 times, most recently
from
ee910cd to
061635b
Compare
Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <tanguy@dagger.io>
Signed-off-by: Joel Longtine <joel@longtine.io>
Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <tanguy@dagger.io>
Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <tanguy@dagger.io>
Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <tanguy@dagger.io>
Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <tanguy@dagger.io>
Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <tanguy@dagger.io>
Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <tanguy@dagger.io>
dolanor
force-pushed
the
dynamic-secrets
branch
from
ad5c73a to
44d3abe
Compare
Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <tanguy@dagger.io>
jlongtine
approved these changes
Mar 13, 2023
vito
reviewed
Mar 13, 2023
Contributor
vito
left a comment
vito
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking good, mostly nitpicks! I like the idea of storing a digest in the SecretID to keep them deterministic. 👍
Co-authored-by: Alex Suraci <suraci.alex@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <dolanorgit@evereska.org>
Co-authored-by: Alex Suraci <suraci.alex@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <dolanorgit@evereska.org>
Co-authored-by: Alex Suraci <suraci.alex@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <dolanorgit@evereska.org>
Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <tanguy@dagger.io>
The secret ID is already a name + digest Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <tanguy@dagger.io>
(more idiomatic) Signed-off-by: Tanguy ⧓ Herrmann <tanguy@dagger.io>
sipsma
approved these changes
Mar 14, 2023
Contributor
sipsma
left a comment
sipsma
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry for the late unhelpful review, but looks great, happy we finally get this!
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds a top level query
setSecret(name: String!, plaintext: String!): Secret!that will associate a user defined secretnameto aplaintextvalue.Points to figure out
file.secret()deprecationAt the same time, we deprecate
file.secret()as it leaks secrets in the cache. It is not a breaking change, yet. But as it is insecure, I thought of actually breaking thefile.secret()implementation (especially the one bringing the secret in) by always returning an error. We wouldn't want people to use it nonetheless and have important secrets leaked.=> viewed with @jlongtine : we keep backwards compatibility, no breaking change
secret id content
The only information going into the container information would be the secret id which is a base64 of the name of the secret and the sha256(plaintext). It should bust the cache if we change the plaintext. I think this is the behavior that we want. But it would be less secure than if we used a hash only derived from the secret name. In that case, nobody would know if the secret plaintext has been changed, and the cached version would be used. The user would have to bust their cache by themselves.
I'm open to discussion/experience sharing about this.