Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

CCO-249: Replace GCP role with explicit permissions #844

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 8, 2024
Merged

CCO-249: Replace GCP role with explicit permissions #844

merged 1 commit into from Jan 8, 2024

Conversation

Miciah
Copy link
Contributor

@Miciah Miciah commented Oct 16, 2022 •
edited

Instead of using a predefined role in the cloud credentials request for GCP, enumerate permissions explicitly.

The Google Cloud DNS API permissions are documented here: https://cloud.google.com/dns/docs/access-control

Each method in the Cloud DNS API has a corresponding permission. The operator's DNS provider implementation for GCP only calls two methods:

  • dns.changes.create
  • dns.resourcerecordsets.list

These methods require the following permissions:

  • dns.changes.create
  • dns.resourceRecordSets.create
  • dns.resourceRecordSets.update
  • dns.resourceRecordSets.delete
  • dns.resourceRecordSets.list

This PR replaces the dns.admin role with these permissions in the credentials request.

  • manifests/00-ingress-credentials-request.yaml: Replace the roles/dns.admin predefined role with an explicit list of permissions.

@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor Author

Miciah commented Oct 16, 2022

/test e2e-gcp-operator

@Miciah Miciah force-pushed the CCO-249-replace-GCP-role-with-explicit-permissions branch from 5f0a543 to b7e93ae Compare October 16, 2022 21:16
@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor Author

Miciah commented Oct 16, 2022

/test e2e-gcp-operator

@Miciah Miciah force-pushed the CCO-249-replace-GCP-role-with-explicit-permissions branch from b7e93ae to 33eac27 Compare October 16, 2022 23:00
@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor Author

Miciah commented Oct 16, 2022

/test e2e-gcp-operator

@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor Author

Miciah commented Oct 17, 2022

e2e-gcp-operator failed because of a nil-pointer dereference in TestRouterCompressionOperation, which should be fixed by #843.

@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor Author

Miciah commented Oct 17, 2022

e2e-aws-operator failed because of an installer issue, which should be fixed by openshift/installer#6489.

@davemulford
Copy link

@Miciah it looks like dns.changes.create is listed twice?

@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor Author

Miciah commented Oct 17, 2022

@Miciah it looks like dns.changes.create is listed twice?

Indeed. Thanks for pointing that out! I'll fix that in the next push.

@Miciah Miciah force-pushed the CCO-249-replace-GCP-role-with-explicit-permissions branch 2 times, most recently from 48be43f to 677106a Compare October 17, 2022 16:53
@huangmingxia
Copy link

@Miciah I tested with case OCP-55034 , PTAL, thank you.

@candita
Copy link
Contributor

candita commented Oct 19, 2022

/assign @gcs278 @suleymanakbas91

@gcs278
Copy link
Contributor

gcs278 commented Oct 19, 2022

nit your PR description is a little off, probably just want to make it match your latest commit message.
Otherwise, reviewed permissions and code using permissions. Makes sense. CI will be the real test here to see if we miss something.
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 19, 2022
@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor Author

Miciah commented Oct 20, 2022

nit your PR description is a little off, probably just want to make it match your latest commit message.

Thanks! I think I've corrected the discrepancies.

@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor Author

Miciah commented Oct 22, 2022

/test e2e-gcp-operator
This should pass now that #843 has merged.

@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor Author

Miciah commented Oct 25, 2022

e2e-gcp-operator failed because kube-apiserver reported NodeInstallerProgressing.
/test e2e-gcp-operator

@gcs278
Copy link
Contributor

gcs278 commented Oct 26, 2022

All look like cluster install failures and etcd issues.
/retest

@gcs278
Copy link
Contributor

gcs278 commented Oct 26, 2022

/approve

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 26, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: gcs278

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 26, 2022
@gcs278
Copy link
Contributor

gcs278 commented Oct 27, 2022

disruption and deprovisioning issues
/retest

@gcs278
Copy link
Contributor

gcs278 commented Oct 31, 2022

disruption issues, DNS e2e failure, and deprovision issues.
/retest

@gcs278
Copy link
Contributor

gcs278 commented Nov 1, 2022

e2e-gcp-ovn-serial is a little suspicious with a GCP Service unavailable, but seems transient.
e2e-aws-operator deprovisioning issue
/retest

@abutcher
Copy link
Member

Holding due to custom role leak in CI https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CCO-243.
/hold

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 7, 2023
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Nov 7, 2023
@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor Author

Miciah commented Nov 7, 2023

/remove-lifecycle rotten

/hold cancel
now that openshift/cloud-credential-operator#611 merged.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 7, 2023 •
edited by openshift-ci bot

@Miciah: This pull request references CCO-249 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Instead of using a predefined role in the cloud credentials request for GCP, enumerate permissions explicitly.

The Google Cloud DNS API permissions are documented here: https://cloud.google.com/dns/docs/access-control

Each method in the Cloud DNS API has a corresponding permission. The operator's DNS provider implementation for GCP only calls two methods:

  • dns.changes.create
  • dns.resourcerecordsets.list

These methods require the following permissions:

  • dns.changes.create
  • dns.resourceRecordSets.create
  • dns.resourceRecordSets.update
  • dns.resourceRecordSets.delete
  • dns.resourceRecordSets.list

This PR replaces the dns.admin role with these permissions in the credentials request.

  • manifests/00-ingress-credentials-request.yaml: Replace the roles/dns.admin predefined role with an explicit list of permissions.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. labels Nov 7, 2023
@frobware
Copy link
Contributor

frobware commented Nov 7, 2023

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 7, 2023
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 23ee5be and 2 for PR HEAD a236822 in total

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 9e77590 and 1 for PR HEAD a236822 in total

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 9e77590 and 2 for PR HEAD a236822 in total

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 30833ad and 1 for PR HEAD a236822 in total

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD bd29f8a and 0 for PR HEAD a236822 in total

@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 29, 2023 •
edited

@Miciah: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-ovn-serial 677106a link true /test e2e-gcp-ovn-serial

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/hold

Revision a236822 was retested 3 times: holding

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 29, 2023
@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor Author

Miciah commented Nov 29, 2023

e2e-gcp-operator failed because TestUnmanagedDNSToManagedDNSInternalIngressController failed; this failure is a known issue (OCPBUGS-24044), so we can override the CI job.
/override ci/prow/e2e-gcp-operator

@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 29, 2023

@Miciah: Overrode contexts on behalf of Miciah: ci/prow/e2e-gcp-operator

In response to this:

e2e-gcp-operator failed because TestUnmanagedDNSToManagedDNSInternalIngressController failed; this failure is a known issue (OCPBUGS-24044), so we can override the CI job.
/override ci/prow/e2e-gcp-operator

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@ShudiLi
Copy link
Member

ShudiLi commented Dec 11, 2023

Tested it with 4.15.0-0.ci.test-2023-12-11-002730-ci-ln-zm90s6t-latest, created an internal and an external gcp ingress controller, two routes for the ingresscontrollers worked well. Also the dnsrecords were in good status.
`
1.
% oc get clusterversion
NAME VERSION AVAILABLE PROGRESSING SINCE STATUS
version 4.15.0-0.ci.test-2023-12-11-002730-ci-ln-zm90s6t-latest True False 67m Cluster version is 4.15.0-0.ci.test-2023-12-11-002730-ci-ln-zm90s6t-latest

% oc get route
NAME HOST/PORT PATH SERVICES PORT TERMINATION WILDCARD
edge1 edg1.shard.ci-ln-zm90s6t-72292.origin-ci-int-gce.dev.rhcloud.com ... 1 more unsec-server3 http edge None
unsec-server3 http1.int11.ci-ln-zm90s6t-72292.origin-ci-int-gce.dev.rhcloud.com unsec-server3 http None

% oc -n openshift-ingress get svc
NAME TYPE CLUSTER-IP EXTERNAL-IP PORT(S) AGE
router-default LoadBalancer 172.30.246.63 34.66.75.23 80:30733/TCP,443:31449/TCP 93m
router-int11 LoadBalancer 172.30.169.31 10.0.128.5 80:31203/TCP,443:32639/TCP 49m
router-internal-default ClusterIP 172.30.169.27 80/TCP,443/TCP,1936/TCP 93m
router-internal-int11 ClusterIP 172.30.32.7 80/TCP,443/TCP,1936/TCP 49m
router-internal-shard ClusterIP 172.30.50.0 80/TCP,443/TCP,1936/TCP 49m
router-shard LoadBalancer 172.30.72.171 34.135.238.13 80:30382/TCP,443:30878/TCP 49m

  1. curl the routes
    % curl https://edg1.shard.ci-ln-zm90s6t-72292.origin-ci-int-gce.dev.rhcloud.com -k
    this a test!
    %
    sh-4.4# curl http://http1.int11.ci-ln-zm90s6t-72292.origin-ci-int-gce.dev.rhcloud.com
    this a test!
    sh-4.4#

%oc -n openshift-ingress-operator get dnsrecords shard-wildcard -oyaml
...
spec:
dnsManagementPolicy: Managed
dnsName: '*.shard.ci-ln-zm90s6t-72292.origin-ci-int-gce.dev.rhcloud.com.'
recordTTL: 30
recordType: A
targets:

  • 34.135.238.13
    status:
    observedGeneration: 1
    zones:

  • conditions:

    • lastTransitionTime: "2023-12-11T01:30:08Z"
      message: The DNS provider succeeded in ensuring the record
      reason: ProviderSuccess
      status: "True"
      type: Published
      dnsZone:
      id: ci-ln-zm90s6t-72292-m5rhf-private-zone

  • conditions:

    • lastTransitionTime: "2023-12-11T01:30:08Z"
      message: The DNS provider succeeded in ensuring the record
      reason: ProviderSuccess
      status: "True"
      type: Published
      dnsZone:
      id: origin-ci-int-gce

    % oc -n openshift-ingress-operator get dnsrecords int11-wildcard -oyaml
    ...
    spec:
    dnsManagementPolicy: Managed
    dnsName: '*.int11.ci-ln-zm90s6t-72292.origin-ci-int-gce.dev.rhcloud.com.'
    recordTTL: 30
    recordType: A
    targets:

  • 10.0.128.5
    status:
    observedGeneration: 1
    zones:

  • conditions:

    • lastTransitionTime: "2023-12-11T01:29:29Z"
      message: The DNS provider succeeded in ensuring the record
      reason: ProviderSuccess
      status: "True"
      type: Published
      dnsZone:
      id: ci-ln-zm90s6t-72292-m5rhf-private-zone

  • conditions:

    • lastTransitionTime: "2023-12-11T01:29:29Z"
      message: The DNS provider succeeded in ensuring the record
      reason: ProviderSuccess
      status: "True"
      type: Published
      dnsZone:
      id: origin-ci-int-gce

`

@ShudiLi
Copy link
Member

ShudiLi commented Dec 11, 2023

@huangmingxia @lihongan worked well from network edge side, please take a look at the above my comment, thanks.

@huangmingxia
Copy link

huangmingxia commented Dec 13, 2023 •
edited

/label qe-approved
Thanks @ShudiLi @lihongan

@huangmingxia
Copy link

/label qe-approved

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the qe-approved Signifies that QE has signed off on this PR label Dec 13, 2023
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 13, 2023 •
edited by openshift-ci bot

@Miciah: This pull request references CCO-249 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Instead of using a predefined role in the cloud credentials request for GCP, enumerate permissions explicitly.

The Google Cloud DNS API permissions are documented here: https://cloud.google.com/dns/docs/access-control

Each method in the Cloud DNS API has a corresponding permission. The operator's DNS provider implementation for GCP only calls two methods:

  • dns.changes.create
  • dns.resourcerecordsets.list

These methods require the following permissions:

  • dns.changes.create
  • dns.resourceRecordSets.create
  • dns.resourceRecordSets.update
  • dns.resourceRecordSets.delete
  • dns.resourceRecordSets.list

This PR replaces the dns.admin role with these permissions in the credentials request.

  • manifests/00-ingress-credentials-request.yaml: Replace the roles/dns.admin predefined role with an explicit list of permissions.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor Author

Miciah commented Jan 8, 2024

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jan 8, 2024
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD d09611e and 2 for PR HEAD a236822 in total

@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit fa2954d into openshift:master Jan 8, 2024
14 checks passed
@Miciah Miciah mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2024
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@candita candita Awaiting requested review from candita

@knobunc knobunc Awaiting requested review from knobunc

Assignees

@frobware frobware

@gcs278 gcs278

@suleymanakbas91 suleymanakbas91

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. qe-approved Signifies that QE has signed off on this PR
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet