UPSTREAM: <carry>: include cluster name in authz SubjectAccessReview in webhooks #151
Conversation
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
…in webhooks On-behalf-of: @SAP christoph.mewes@sap.com
xrstf
force-pushed
the
include-cluster-in-authz-webhooks
branch
from
2ec0f78 to
233d40c
Compare
embik
changed the title
This was referenced Nov 13, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
I am working on enabling the authorization webhook feature in kcp, allowing to send authz requests to an external URL. To make this useful, the SubjectAccessReview (SAR) needs to also include the cluster name. Sadly there is no good way to override the way the webhook plugin constructs a SAR and it's also not trivial to just construct a different, custom webhook implementation (because it is wrapped in a reloadableAuthorizer, which would also need to be copied and adjusted to make it work).
This PR therefore represents the simplest possible approach: Take the cluster name from the context, stuff it into the Extra field, done. The key name is
authentication.kubernetes.io/cluster-namebased on kcp-dev/kcp#3156, even though it's kinda misleading (authentication vs. authorization).Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
NB: This includes the fixup in #152
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: