Batch fix links (3)

content/en/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/node-pressure-eviction.md

@@ -66,8 +66,8 @@ the signal.
 
 The value for `memory.available` is derived from the cgroupfs instead of tools
 like `free -m`. This is important because `free -m` does not work in a
-container, and if users use the [node
-allocatable](/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/reserve-compute-resources/#node-allocatable) feature, out of resource decisions
+container, and if users use the [node allocatable](/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/reserve-compute-resources/#node-allocatable)
+feature, out of resource decisions
 are made local to the end user Pod part of the cgroup hierarchy as well as the
 root node. This [script](/examples/admin/resource/memory-available.sh)
 reproduces the same set of steps that the kubelet performs to calculate
@@ -87,7 +87,8 @@ does not support other configurations.
 
 {{<note>}}
 Some kubelet garbage collection features are deprecated in favor of eviction.
-For a list of the deprecated features, see [kubelet garbage collection deprecation](/docs/concepts/cluster-administration/kubelet-garbage-collection/#deprecation).
+For a list of the deprecated features, see
+[kubelet garbage collection deprecation](/docs/concepts/architecture/garbage-collection/#deprecation).
 {{</note>}}
 
 ### Eviction thresholds

content/en/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/taint-and-toleration.md

@@ -15,14 +15,15 @@ is a property of {{< glossary_tooltip text="Pods" term_id="pod" >}} that *attrac
 a set of {{< glossary_tooltip text="nodes" term_id="node" >}} (either as a preference or a
 hard requirement). _Taints_ are the opposite -- they allow a node to repel a set of pods.
 
-_Tolerations_ are applied to pods. Tolerations allow the scheduler to schedule pods with matching taints. Tolerations allow scheduling but don't guarantee scheduling: the scheduler also [evaluates other parameters](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/pod-priority-preemption/) as part of its function.
+_Tolerations_ are applied to pods. Tolerations allow the scheduler to schedule pods with matching
+taints. Tolerations allow scheduling but don't guarantee scheduling: the scheduler also
+[evaluates other parameters](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/pod-priority-preemption/)
+as part of its function.
 
 Taints and tolerations work together to ensure that pods are not scheduled
 onto inappropriate nodes. One or more taints are applied to a node; this
 marks that the node should not accept any pods that do not tolerate the taints.
 
-
-
 <!-- body -->
 
 ## Concepts
@@ -266,7 +267,8 @@ This ensures that DaemonSet pods are never evicted due to these problems.
 ## Taint Nodes by Condition
 
 The control plane, using the node {{<glossary_tooltip text="controller" term_id="controller">}},
-automatically creates taints with a `NoSchedule` effect for [node conditions](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/node-pressure-eviction/#node-conditions).
+automatically creates taints with a `NoSchedule` effect for
+[node conditions](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/node-pressure-eviction/#node-conditions).
 
 The scheduler checks taints, not node conditions, when it makes scheduling
 decisions. This ensures that node conditions don't directly affect scheduling.
@@ -297,7 +299,7 @@ arbitrary tolerations to DaemonSets.
 
 ## {{% heading "whatsnext" %}}
 
-* Read about [Node-pressure Eviction](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/node-pressure-eviction/) and how you can configure it
+* Read about [Node-pressure Eviction](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/node-pressure-eviction/)
+  and how you can configure it
 * Read about [Pod Priority](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/pod-priority-preemption/)
 
-

content/en/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-standards.md

@@ -462,11 +462,11 @@ of individual policies are not defined here.
 {{% thirdparty-content %}}
 
 Other alternatives for enforcing policies are being developed in the Kubernetes ecosystem, such as: 
+
 - [Kubewarden](https://github.com/kubewarden)
 - [Kyverno](https://kyverno.io/policies/pod-security/)
 - [OPA Gatekeeper](https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper)
 
-
 ## FAQ
 
 ### Why isn't there a profile between privileged and baseline?
@@ -493,9 +493,9 @@ built-in [Pod Security Admission Controller](/docs/concepts/security/pod-securit
 ### What profiles should I apply to my Windows Pods?
 
 Windows in Kubernetes has some limitations and differentiators from standard Linux-based
-workloads. Specifically, many of the Pod SecurityContext fields [have no effect on
-Windows](/docs/setup/production-environment/windows/intro-windows-in-kubernetes/#v1-podsecuritycontext). As
-such, no standardized Pod Security profiles currently exist.
+workloads. Specifically, many of the Pod SecurityContext fields
+[have no effect on Windows](/docs/concepts/windows/intro/#compatibility-v1-pod-spec-containers-securitycontext).
+As such, no standardized Pod Security profiles currently exist.
 
 If you apply the restricted profile for a Windows pod, this **may** have an impact on the pod
 at runtime. The restricted profile requires enforcing Linux-specific restrictions (such as seccomp
@@ -504,7 +504,9 @@ these Linux-specific values, then the Windows pod should still work normally wit
 profile. However, the lack of enforcement means that there is no additional restriction, for Pods
 that use Windows containers, compared to the baseline profile.
 
-The use of the HostProcess flag to create a HostProcess pod should only be done in alignment with the privileged policy. Creation of a Windows HostProcess pod is blocked under the baseline and restricted policies, so any HostProcess pod should be considered privileged.
+The use of the HostProcess flag to create a HostProcess pod should only be done in alignment with the privileged policy.
+Creation of a Windows HostProcess pod is blocked under the baseline and restricted policies,
+so any HostProcess pod should be considered privileged.
 
 ### What about sandboxed Pods?
 
@@ -518,3 +520,4 @@ kernel. This allows for workloads requiring heightened permissions to still be i
 
 Additionally, the protection of sandboxed workloads is highly dependent on the method of
 sandboxing. As such, no single recommended profile is recommended for all sandboxed workloads.
+

content/en/docs/concepts/security/rbac-good-practices.md

@@ -15,7 +15,8 @@ execute their roles. It is important to ensure that, when designing permissions
 users, the cluster administrator understands the areas where privilge escalation could occur, 
 to reduce the risk of excessive access leading to security incidents.
 
-The good practices laid out here should be read in conjunction with the general [RBAC documentation](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/rbac/#restrictions-on-role-creation-or-update).
+The good practices laid out here should be read in conjunction with the general
+[RBAC documentation](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/rbac/#restrictions-on-role-creation-or-update).
 
 <!-- body -->
 
@@ -34,7 +35,8 @@ some general rules that can be applied are :
    not just to all object types presently in the cluster, but also to all future object types
    which are created in the future.
  - Administrators should not use `cluster-admin` accounts except where specifically needed. 
-   Providing a low privileged account with [impersonation rights](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/authentication/#user-impersonation)
+   Providing a low privileged account with
+   [impersonation rights](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/authentication/#user-impersonation)
    can avoid accidental modification of cluster resources.
  - Avoid adding users to the `system:masters` group. Any user who is a member of this group 
    bypasses all RBAC rights checks and will always have unrestricted superuser access, which cannot be 
@@ -44,15 +46,17 @@ some general rules that can be applied are :
 
 ### Minimize distribution of privileged tokens
 
-Ideally, pods shouldn't be assigned service accounts that have been granted powerful permissions (for example, any of the rights listed under
-[privilege escalation risks](#privilege-escalation-risks)). 
+Ideally, pods shouldn't be assigned service accounts that have been granted powerful permissions
+(for example, any of the rights listed under [privilege escalation risks](#privilege-escalation-risks)). 
 In cases where a workload requires powerful permissions, consider the following practices:
 
  - Limit the number of nodes running powerful pods. Ensure that any DaemonSets you run
   are necessary and are run with least privilege to limit the blast radius of container escapes.
  - Avoid running powerful pods alongside untrusted or publicly-exposed ones. Consider using 
-   [Taints and Toleration](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/taint-and-toleration/), [NodeAffinity](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/assign-pod-node/#node-affinity), or [PodAntiAffinity](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/assign-pod-node/#inter-pod-affinity-and-anti-affinity) to ensure 
-   pods don't run alongside untrusted or less-trusted Pods. Pay especial attention to
+   [Taints and Toleration](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/taint-and-toleration/),
+   [NodeAffinity](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/assign-pod-node/#node-affinity), or
+   [PodAntiAffinity](/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/assign-pod-node/#inter-pod-affinity-and-anti-affinity)
+   to ensure pods don't run alongside untrusted or less-trusted Pods. Pay especial attention to
    situations where less-trustworthy Pods are not meeting the **Restricted** Pod Security Standard.
 
 ### Hardening
@@ -107,7 +111,7 @@ with the ability to create suitably secure and isolated Pods, you should enforce
 You can use [Pod Security admission](/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-admission/)
 or other (third party) mechanisms to implement that enforcement.
 
-You can also use the deprecated [PodSecurityPolicy](/docs/concepts/policy/pod-security-policy/) mechanism
+You can also use the deprecated [PodSecurityPolicy](/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-policy/) mechanism
 to restrict users' abilities to create privileged Pods (N.B. PodSecurityPolicy is scheduled for removal
 in version 1.25).
 
@@ -117,7 +121,9 @@ Secrets they would not have through RBAC directly.
 
 ### Persistent volume creation
 
-As noted in the [PodSecurityPolicy](/docs/concepts/policy/pod-security-policy/#volumes-and-file-systems) documentation, access to create PersistentVolumes can allow for escalation of access to the underlying host. Where access to persistent storage is required trusted administrators should create 
+As noted in the [PodSecurityPolicy](/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-policy/#volumes-and-file-systems)
+documentation, access to create PersistentVolumes can allow for escalation of access to the underlying host.
+Where access to persistent storage is required trusted administrators should create 
 PersistentVolumes, and constrained users should use PersistentVolumeClaims to access that storage.
 
 ### Access to `proxy` subresource of Nodes
@@ -130,7 +136,8 @@ granting rights to this resource.
 ### Escalate verb
 
 Generally the RBAC system prevents users from creating clusterroles with more rights than 
-they possess. The exception to this is the `escalate` verb. As noted in the [RBAC documentation](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/rbac/#restrictions-on-role-creation-or-update),
+they possess. The exception to this is the `escalate` verb. As noted in the
+[RBAC documentation](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/rbac/#restrictions-on-role-creation-or-update),
 users with this right can effectively escalate their privileges.
 
 ### Bind verb
@@ -173,8 +180,11 @@ objects to create a denial of service condition either based on the size or numb
 specifically relevant in multi-tenant clusters if semi-trusted or untrusted users 
 are allowed limited access to a system.
 
-One option for mitigation of this issue would be to use [resource quotas](/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas/#object-count-quota)
+One option for mitigation of this issue would be to use
+[resource quotas](/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas/#object-count-quota)
 to limit the quantity of objects which can be created.
 
 ## {{% heading "whatsnext" %}}
+
 * To learn more about RBAC, see the [RBAC documentation](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/rbac/).
+

content/en/docs/concepts/security/windows-security.md

@@ -22,34 +22,41 @@ storage (as compared to using tmpfs / in-memory filesystems on Linux). As a clus
 operator, you should take both of the following additional measures:
 
 1. Use file ACLs to secure the Secrets' file location.
-1. Apply volume-level encryption using [BitLocker](https://docs.microsoft.com/windows/security/information-protection/bitlocker/bitlocker-how-to-deploy-on-windows-server).
+1. Apply volume-level encryption using
+   [BitLocker](https://docs.microsoft.com/windows/security/information-protection/bitlocker/bitlocker-how-to-deploy-on-windows-server).
 
 ## Container users
 
 [RunAsUsername](/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/configure-runasusername)
 can be specified for Windows Pods or containers to execute the container
 processes as specific user. This is roughly equivalent to
-[RunAsUser](/docs/concepts/policy/pod-security-policy/#users-and-groups).
+[RunAsUser](/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-policy/#users-and-groups).
 
 Windows containers offer two default user accounts, ContainerUser and ContainerAdministrator.
 The differences between these two user accounts are covered in
-[When to use ContainerAdmin and ContainerUser user accounts](https://docs.microsoft.com/virtualization/windowscontainers/manage-containers/container-security#when-to-use-containeradmin-and-containeruser-user-accounts) within Microsoft's _Secure Windows containers_ documentation.
+[When to use ContainerAdmin and ContainerUser user accounts](https://docs.microsoft.com/virtualization/windowscontainers/manage-containers/container-security#when-to-use-containeradmin-and-containeruser-user-accounts)
+within Microsoft's _Secure Windows containers_ documentation.
 
 Local users can be added to container images during the container build process.
 
 {{< note >}}
 
-* [Nano Server](https://hub.docker.com/_/microsoft-windows-nanoserver) based images run as `ContainerUser` by default
-* [Server Core](https://hub.docker.com/_/microsoft-windows-servercore) based images run as `ContainerAdministrator` by default
+* [Nano Server](https://hub.docker.com/_/microsoft-windows-nanoserver) based images run as
+  `ContainerUser` by default
+* [Server Core](https://hub.docker.com/_/microsoft-windows-servercore) based images run as
+  `ContainerAdministrator` by default
 
 {{< /note >}}
 
-Windows containers can also run as Active Directory identities by utilizing [Group Managed Service Accounts](/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/configure-gmsa/)
+Windows containers can also run as Active Directory identities by utilizing
+[Group Managed Service Accounts](/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/configure-gmsa/)
 
 ## Pod-level security isolation
 
 Linux-specific pod security context mechanisms (such as SELinux, AppArmor, Seccomp, or custom
 POSIX capabilities) are not supported on Windows nodes.
 
-Privileged containers are [not supported](/docs/concepts/windows/intro/#compatibility-v1-pod-spec-containers-securitycontext) on Windows.
-Instead [HostProcess containers](/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/create-hostprocess-pod) can be used on Windows to perform many of the tasks performed by privileged containers on Linux.
+Privileged containers are [not supported](/docs/concepts/windows/intro/#compatibility-v1-pod-spec-containers-securitycontext)
+on Windows.
+Instead [HostProcess containers](/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/create-hostprocess-pod)
+can be used on Windows to perform many of the tasks performed by privileged containers on Linux.