-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
Add preflight check for seccomp #25
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add preflight check for seccomp #25
Conversation
validators/types_unix.go
Outdated
| {Name: "NETFILTER_XT_MATCH_COMMENT"}, | ||
| {Name: "FAIR_GROUP_SCHED"}, | ||
| {Name: "SECCOMP"}, | ||
| {Name: "SECCOMP_FILTER"}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hi, given we are adding this to "required", do we know if there are any popular distributions used for k8s that have this config explicitly disabled (i.e. the options are missing in the config)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't have the list of kernel configs of popular distributions although I have never heard to change the kernel config of seccomp from y to n.
I think some embedded systems may change the default to disable seccomp to reduce the impact of performance.
At first, I thought seccomp was one of requirements in the current Kubernetes.
But SeccompProfile is the optional currently and Kubernetes can launch the container without seccomp at least.
As of now, I think it is ok to change this check from Required to Optional.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In addition, the seccomp e2e test is not included in the conformance check.
I'm sorry I should check it at first.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I updated this check from Required to Optional.
Signed-off-by: Kenta Tada <Kenta.Tada@sony.com>
e91fdf8 to
c9ffc95
Compare
|
Yes, maybe having this as optional is better given the conformance factor.
My assumption is similar - some distros may have opted out but not the
popular mainline ones.
/lgtm
/approve
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: KentaTada, neolit123 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
seccomp has already been GA since Kubernetes 1.19.
I think it is essential for the current Kubernetes, but could you give me your opinion if you have any concern about adding the seccomp check?
Signed-off-by: Kenta Tada Kenta.Tada@sony.com