Bug 1782583: destroy/gcp/policybinding.go: identity deleted service accounts belonging to the cluster #2790
Conversation
…ging to the cluster Based on https://cloud.google.com/resource-manager/reference/rest/Shared.Types/Binding The members values can be: ``` deleted:serviceAccount:{emailid}?uid={uniqueid}: An email address (plus unique identifier) representing a service account that has been recently deleted. For example, my-other-app@appspot.gserviceaccount.com?uid=123456789012345678901. If the service account is undeleted, this value reverts to serviceAccount:{emailid} and the undeleted service account retains the role in the binding. ``` this looks like a new addition to the API since the archive from Oct 26, 2019 doesn't have these value type. see https://web.archive.org/web/20181026092140/https://cloud.google.com/resource-manager/reference/rest/Shared.Types/Binding Also it doesn't look like the API is being consistent with the result as two consecutive requests are returning different responses :P ``` [7:08:11] ➜ installer git:(add_platform_owners) ✗ gcloud projects get-iam-policy openshift-gce-devel-ci --format json | grep "ci-op-4wlm9" "serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-m@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com", "serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-openshift-m-w75nq@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com", "serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-m@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com", "serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-m@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com", "serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-w@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com", "serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-openshift-i-nnvgl@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com", "serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-m@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com", "serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-openshift-i-zh522@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com", "serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-openshift-m-w75nq@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com", "serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-m@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com", "serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-openshift-i-zh522@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com", "serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-w@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com", [7:08:23] ➜ installer git:(add_platform_owners) ✗ gcloud projects get-iam-policy openshift-gce-devel-ci --format json | grep "ci-op-4wlm9" "deleted:serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-m@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com?uid=111636284758116941377", "deleted:serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-openshift-m-w75nq@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com?uid=115542993089051207368", "deleted:serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-m@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com?uid=111636284758116941377", "deleted:serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-m@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com?uid=111636284758116941377", "deleted:serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-w@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com?uid=106651455962694555805", "deleted:serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-openshift-i-nnvgl@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com?uid=113695655870612204124", "deleted:serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-m@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com?uid=111636284758116941377", "deleted:serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-openshift-i-zh522@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com?uid=103715387178859573892", "deleted:serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-openshift-m-w75nq@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com?uid=115542993089051207368", "deleted:serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-m@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com?uid=111636284758116941377", "deleted:serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-openshift-i-zh522@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com?uid=103715387178859573892", "deleted:serviceAccount:ci-op-4wlm9-w@openshift-gce-devel-ci.iam.gserviceaccount.com?uid=106651455962694555805", ```
|
/test e2e-gcp |
openshift-ci-robot
added
size/XS
|
/cherrypick release-4.3 |
|
@abhinavdahiya: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-4.3 in a new PR and assign it to you. In response to this:
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. |
|
/lgtm |
|
/retest |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: abhinavdahiya, cgwalters, jstuever 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 |
|
/retest |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
2 similar comments
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/override ci/prow/e2e-aws-upgrade this doesn't affect aws upgrades, and this is causing leaks in the CI for GCP changed behavior. shows that |
|
@abhinavdahiya: Overrode contexts on behalf of abhinavdahiya: ci/prow/e2e-aws-upgrade In response to this:
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. |
abhinavdahiya
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
bugzilla/invalid-bug
|
@abhinavdahiya: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1782583, which is invalid:
Comment In response to this:
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. |
|
/override ci/prow/e2e-aws |
|
@abhinavdahiya: Overrode contexts on behalf of abhinavdahiya: ci/prow/e2e-aws In response to this:
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. |
|
/refresh |
|
/bugzilla refresh |
|
@abhinavdahiya: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1782583, which is invalid:
Comment In response to this:
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. |
|
/bugzilla refresh |
openshift-ci-robot
added
bugzilla/valid-bug
|
@abhinavdahiya: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1782583, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. In response to this:
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. |
|
@abhinavdahiya: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged. Bugzilla bug 1782583 has been moved to the MODIFIED state. In response to this:
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. |
|
@abhinavdahiya: new pull request created: #2796 In response to this:
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. |
Based on https://cloud.google.com/resource-manager/reference/rest/Shared.Types/Binding
The members values can be:
this looks like a new addition to the API since the archive from Oct 26, 2019 doesn't have these value type. see https://web.archive.org/web/20181026092140/https://cloud.google.com/resource-manager/reference/rest/Shared.Types/Binding
Also it doesn't look like the API is being consistent with the result as two consecutive requests are returning different responses :P
/assign @jstuever @patrickdillon