security(k8s): record the CNPG degraded-alert service-account-token verdict - #3027
Merged
Conversation
The CronJob already sets automountServiceAccountToken: true with a prose comment naming the API access, but checkov cannot read a comment, so CKV_K8S_38 stayed open on it. Add the resource-scoped checkov.io/skip annotation the other seven CKV_K8S_38 workloads already use. Part of #2845
Contributor
✅
|
Open
3 tasks
Contributor
Author
The red CI here is not this change
The cause is repository-wide and started at 00:00Z today: a test fixture in Fix is in #3029. This PR is blocked behind it and will be rebased once that merges; nothing to fix Separately, the real activation marker carries the same date and the gate is active, so prod deploys |
This was referenced Aug 9, 2026
Contributor
Author
Parked on a named blocker — the red CI here is not this PR's faultDiagnosed rather than re-run. The fix is #3029, which is green and ready but cannot merge yet — merging here runs the deploy |
Contributor
Author
@coderabbitai review |
Contributor
|
|
Contributor
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 55 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository YAML (base), Organization UI (inherited) Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
Contributor
Author
CodeRabbit returned Worth recording, because it contradicts the tempting inference: the refusal is not account-wide. In the same minute, @codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🚀 Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
Contributor
Author
Status: recovered to green, and deliberately not enqueued. The red here was never a finding in this PR. It was #3029's expired control fixture — a run from Merge is parked on a named, live-verified blocker — not on judgement. Reading That is verified against the queue rather than inferred — The unblocker is #3035, which releases the gate. This PR waits behind it; the ordering is #3028 → #3035 → this. I am not touching either — both are being driven interactively. Review lane at this head: CodeRabbit returned |
Contributor
Author
Readiness record at The green CI does not evidence this change. So I ran the real tool, both states. checkov 3.3.0 against the manifest at this head versus at
The annotation is consumed as intended, verified against the tool rather than inferred from the syntax. One thing the run surfaced that is out of scope here. The same CronJob also fails CKV_K8S_35 ("prefer secrets as files over secrets as environment variables"), on Review: Codex clean pass at All three readiness conditions hold, so promoting. Merge stays parked on the blocker in my previous comment — #3035 must land first. Enqueuing this before then just takes the same |
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
1 participant
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.
Why
CKV_K8S_38flags workloads that mount a service-account token they may not need — a credentialsitting in the container filesystem. One workload was still failing that check: the CronJob that
alerts on a degraded CloudNativePG database.
It genuinely needs its token — it calls the Kubernetes API to list CNPG clusters — and someone had
already written that reasoning into the manifest as a comment. But a scanner cannot read a comment,
so the finding stayed open and kept the checkov gate off.
What
Records the same verdict in the form checkov actually reads — the resource-scoped
checkov.io/skip1annotation that the other sevenCKV_K8S_38workloads in this repo already use.No behaviour change: the annotation is inert to Kubernetes, and the token itself is untouched.
CKV_K8S_38now reports zero across the repository, taking the tracked checkov total from12 to 11.
Worth knowing at review time
This issue's evidence was stale and the scope turned out much smaller than written. #2845 listed
8 failing workloads measured on 2026-07-28; re-measuring on current
mainfound 1. Seven wereresolved in the intervening two weeks. The one remaining was not even on the original list — it is a
newer workload that arrived after the issue was filed.
One acceptance criterion was not met as written, and could not be. Criterion 4 says no linter
suppression may be added. Every one of the eight workloads legitimately needs its token, so there is
nothing to fix at the manifest — an annotation is the only way to record the verdict. That is the
route the parent #2787 explicitly permits ("anything genuinely irreducible gets a scoped, justified
skip with its reason, never a blanket disable"), and it is what the previous seven dispositions
already did. Flagging it rather than quietly reinterpreting the criterion.
Fixes #2845
Part of #2787