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.

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

Bug 1805570: Remove run-level 1 from olm and openshift-operators namespaces #1308

Merged

Conversation

dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member

OLM and the operators that it deploys shouldn't have run-level 1
and should use SCC as "anyuid" or "restricted".

Signed-off-by: Vu Dinh vdinh@redhat.com

Description of the change:

Motivation for the change:

Reviewer Checklist

  • Implementation matches the proposed design, or proposal is updated to match implementation
  • Sufficient unit test coverage
  • Sufficient end-to-end test coverage
  • Docs updated or added to /docs
  • Commit messages sensible and descriptive

OLM and the operators that it deploys shouldn't have run-level 1
and should use SCC as "anyuid" or "restricted".

Signed-off-by: Vu Dinh <vdinh@redhat.com>
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 20, 2020
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

1 similar comment
@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
/approve

If e2e passes this should be good.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Feb 21, 2020
@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

dinhxuanvu commented Feb 21, 2020

/test e2e-gcp-upgrade

@njhale njhale changed the title Remove run-level 1 from olm and openshift-operators namespaces Bug 1805570: Remove run-level 1 from olm and openshift-operators namespaces Feb 21, 2020
@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@dinhxuanvu dinhxuanvu removed the request for review from exdx February 21, 2020 03:12
@njhale
Copy link
Member

njhale commented Feb 21, 2020

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

7 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

4 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@njhale
Copy link
Member

njhale commented Feb 24, 2020

I suspect that we just need to add the correct permissions in the Dockerfile for the arbitrary user to have access; eg:

RUN chmod g=u /
USER 1001

@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

I manage to overcome the certificate issue but now another error pops up:
W0225 05:44:06.564842 1 authentication.go:245] Unable to get configmap/extension-apiserver-authentication in kube-system. Usually fixed by 'kubectl create rolebinding -n kube-system ROLE_NAME --role=extension-apiserver-authentication-reader --serviceaccount=YOUR_NS:YOUR_SA' Error: configmaps "extension-apiserver-authentication" is forbidden: User "system:serviceaccount:openshift-operators:default" cannot get resource "configmaps" in API group "" in the namespace "kube-system"

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 25, 2020
@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

/test e2e-gcp-upgrade

@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

Please keep this PR on hold until further notice on @shawn-hurley request. Thanks.

@dinhxuanvu dinhxuanvu changed the title Bug 1805570: Remove run-level 1 from olm and openshift-operators namespaces [DO NOT MERGE] Bug 1805570: Remove run-level 1 from olm and openshift-operators namespaces Feb 25, 2020
Remove the mock-extension-apiserver iamge usage on TestUpdateCSVInPlace
test case that causes the failure as the CSV doesn't own that APIServer

Signed-off-by: Vu Dinh <vdinh@redhat.com>
@njhale
Copy link
Member

njhale commented Feb 25, 2020

/retest

Copy link
Member

@njhale njhale left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 25, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dinhxuanvu, ecordell, njhale

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

@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@ecordell ecordell changed the title [DO NOT MERGE] Bug 1805570: Remove run-level 1 from olm and openshift-operators namespaces Bug 1805570: Remove run-level 1 from olm and openshift-operators namespaces Feb 26, 2020
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Feb 26, 2020
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

1 similar comment
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

Please hold for Shawn.
/hold

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Feb 26, 2020
@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Feb 27, 2020
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

2 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit e7b6616 into operator-framework:master Feb 27, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

@dinhxuanvu: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged. Bugzilla bug 1805570 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1805570: Remove run-level 1 from olm and openshift-operators namespaces

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants