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

[epic] Ability to configure user/group permissions to an Operator's provided APIs #383

Open
1 task done
ncdc opened this issue Aug 31, 2023 · 1 comment
Open
1 task done
Labels
epic v1.x Issues related to OLMv1 features that come after 1.0

Comments

@ncdc
Copy link
Member

ncdc commented Aug 31, 2023

Summary

When you install an operator with OLM v0, OLM adds the operator’s provided APIs to the admin/edit/view roles for all namespaces. This means that any user with admin, edit, or view permission in any namespace has access to the operator’s APIs, and there is no way to change this.

Users have asked for a finer-grained permissions configuration for operator APIs. In addition to continuing to support the v0 model described above, v1 gives you more flexibility with new options:

  • No permission management of any kind; RBAC configuration is left to the user managing the operator (likely an admin).
  • Configure access in specific namespaces by name and/or label selector
  • Configure admin/edit/view access for specific users and/or groups
  • Configure custom permissions for specific users and/or groups
  • Configure access to all operator-provided APIs, or a specific subset

Design Docs

Task List

@ncdc ncdc added the epic label Aug 31, 2023
@tmshort tmshort self-assigned this Oct 4, 2023
@joelanford joelanford added the v1.x Issues related to OLMv1 features that come after 1.0 label Apr 4, 2024
@joelanford joelanford changed the title Ability to configure user/group permissions to an Operator's provided APIs [epic] Ability to configure user/group permissions to an Operator's provided APIs Apr 4, 2024
@LalatenduMohanty
Copy link
Member

This is not a high priority yet. This was written atleast year back and we need to examine this again to find where it fits in our priority. However we will be happy to get feedback on use-cases on this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
epic v1.x Issues related to OLMv1 features that come after 1.0
Projects
Status: No status
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants