Create random hostname for GMSA

[zylxjtu]

This will only apply to gmsa pods which have the corresponding security context

Disabling/enabling of this can be controlled through ENV

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @zylxjtu!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/windows-gmsa 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/windows-gmsa has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[avin3sh]

(don't mind me, I just watch this repo out of curiosity)

Why this feature ? Isn't hostname supposed to be same as gMSA name ?

[jsturtevant]

Why this feature ?

I believe this is an attempt to fix microsoft/Windows-Containers#405

Isn't hostname supposed to be same as gMSA name ?

I do not believe that is a requirement. With a standard k8s Deployment the pod name is randomized by kubernetes and the pod name is the Hostname by default so it already is different than the gmsa name in most deployments today.

[jsturtevant]

Thanks for working on this! It would also be valuable to add a couple test cases to the integration suite: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/windows-gmsa/blob/master/admission-webhook/integration_tests/integration_test.go

[jsturtevant]

/lgtm
/assign @marosset

its all been fixed

[jsturtevant]

/lgtm

[marosset]

Can we add a test case for this?
Should we error here?

On one hand env_int just fails silently and on the other hand env will cause a panic.

I think that if the env var is set and we can't parse the value - we should consider throwing error'ing out because the intention was the enable new functionality (RANDOM_HOSTNAME in this case).

[zylxjtu]

I will add a test case. I would prefer that throw an error when parsing failure, will change accordingly for env_bool, but would like to keep env_int as it is, not part of this PR

[marosset]

sounds good to me

[jsturtevant]

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jsturtevant, zylxjtu

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:

• OWNERS [jsturtevant]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment