-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.3k
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
Chart: Rework NetworkPolicies
.
#9634
Conversation
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If Ingress contributors determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The 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. |
Hi @Gacko. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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. |
NetworkPolicy
.
NetworkPolicy
.NetworkPolicy
.
NetworkPolicy
.NetworkPolicy
.
NetworkPolicy
.NetworkPolicy
.
NetworkPolicy
.NetworkPolicies
.
/assign |
Can you provide more explanation for why this change is necessary, given that it is a disruptive modification? Thanks |
Sure! Right now there's a I first of all just renamed the manifest and made it what it's actually doing plus not binding it to the admission webhook configuration but to the controller configuration and limit access to the ports really in use. One can still disable the access to the admission webhook port by simply disabling So yeah, you're right: This is breaking because I removed Additionally I created a similar network policy for the default backend, which did not exist before, and reworked the existing network policy for the webhook patch jobs to align it to the other webhook patch job resources. If one requires So from my point of view: Yeah, it's breaking, but right now in environments which require btw: This all is totally useless and non-breaking in environments not using restrictive / deny-by-default |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Gacko The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-ingress-nginx ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Thank you for continuously updating this PR. I need to do some verification on it. You don't need to update it anymore before I come back. I will leave comments when I finish the review. |
Hey @tao12345666333! Have you been able to review this PR? Is there anything I can do to get it merged soon? |
@tao12345666333: I opened #10238 in favor of this PR since the base repository changed. |
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR reworks the existing controller network policy which was added for the admission webhook to restrict access on all known ports instead of allowing any and adds a network policy for the default backend.
Types of changes
Which issue/s this PR fixes
How Has This Been Tested?
Checklist:
Does my pull request need a release note?
Any user-visible or operator-visible change qualifies for a release note. This could be a:
No release notes are required for changes to the following:
For more tips on writing good release notes, check out the Release Notes Handbook