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

Remove local restriction for deferred node password validation #11646

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 24, 2025

Conversation

brandond
Copy link
Member

@brandond brandond commented Jan 23, 2025

Proposed Changes

Remove local restriction for deferred node password validation

Restricting deferred node password validation to only requests from the local node is not possible without breaking split-role cluster cold start. There are too many cases where node password secrets may not yet be available due to the apiserver not being up.

This was added in response to https://github.com/rancher/security-team/issues/1097#issuecomment-2575374965 but turns out to not be something we can actually lock down without breaking things.

Types of Changes

regression fix

Verification

See linked issue

Testing

TODO - need to add a split-role test that mimics rancher's order of operations. For split-role clusters, rancher waits for all etcd nodes to start containerd, kubelet, and etcd before joining control-plane nodes.
Tracking this in: #11647

Linked Issues

User-Facing Change


Further Comments

@brandond brandond requested a review from a team as a code owner January 23, 2025 22:25
Restricting deferred node password validation to only requests from the local node is not possible without breaking split-role cluster cold start. There are too many cases where node password secrets may not yet be available due to the apiserver not being up.

Signed-off-by: Brad Davidson <brad.davidson@rancher.com>
@brandond brandond force-pushed the allow-deferred-etcd-only branch from a37dc64 to 3e506ec Compare January 23, 2025 22:28
cwayne18
cwayne18 previously approved these changes Jan 23, 2025
Also add an ordinal to subtests so its easier to figure out which one is failing

Signed-off-by: Brad Davidson <brad.davidson@rancher.com>
@brandond brandond dismissed stale reviews from ShylajaDevadiga and cwayne18 via 463af34 January 23, 2025 23:39
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 24, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 50.00000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 47.71%. Comparing base (3198b32) to head (463af34).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
pkg/nodepassword/validate.go 50.00% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #11646      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   50.02%   47.71%   -2.32%     
==========================================
  Files         185      185              
  Lines       19265    19262       -3     
==========================================
- Hits         9637     9190     -447     
- Misses       8236     8739     +503     
+ Partials     1392     1333      -59     
Flag Coverage Δ
e2etests 40.49% <50.00%> (-3.82%) ⬇️
inttests 35.11% <0.00%> (-0.10%) ⬇️
unittests 17.03% <50.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@brandond brandond merged commit 976b23d into k3s-io:master Jan 24, 2025
39 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants