-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 237
API-1844: KMS Encryption Provider #1876
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
Open
swghosh
wants to merge
2
commits into
openshift:master
Choose a base branch
from
swghosh:kms-enc-provider
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was looking at your change to the key controller and the more I am thinking about it the more I think we should handle local keys and kms keys differently. A lot of the existing key controller logic is about generating the key and backing it. Whereas for KMS we want to generating a plugin config and backing it up.
Because of that, I think it would be more appropriate to create a new controller for KMS. wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, there is one particular logic for which we will need the keyController and a new key state which is when the key is rotated on the external KMS.
When that happens we the KMS plugin will returned a new
key_id
in the responses: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-auth/3299-kms-v2-improvements#key_id-and-rotation.In our case to handle that scenario we want the keyController to probe the
Status
procedure call and create a new key secret when the key_id changes to trigger a storage migration.I recall discussing that with you in the past and we agreed that this could be done at a later point, but looking at your PR, was the intent behind your key controller changes to act as a placeholder to include that logic later?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reasonably, we can follow-up with this when we add a new controller to manage the lifecycle of kms-plugin itself. Because then we'd need to update the status somewhere to list active KMS config hashes for the plugin controller to spin up unix sockets.