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

Make the failurePolicy of the mutating admission controller configurable #516

Closed
tkent opened this issue Aug 2, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #528
Closed

Make the failurePolicy of the mutating admission controller configurable #516

tkent opened this issue Aug 2, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #528
Labels
enhancement New feature or request webhook
Milestone

Comments

@tkent
Copy link

tkent commented Aug 2, 2022

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

The helm chart does not allow the failurePolicy for the mutating admission controller to be configurable. Since pods can be created or updated before the Azure Workload Identity webhook controllers have started up, they can be correctly annotated but fail to have the credential information injected into their definition.

Describe the solution you'd like

Allow the user to specify what type of failurePolicy they'd like to have in their cluster.

Describe alternatives you've considered

n/a

Additional context

This comes in scenarios where many nodes are being swapped - especially in small clusters.

@tkent tkent added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 2, 2022
@aramase aramase added the webhook label Aug 2, 2022
@aramase aramase added this to the v0.13.0 milestone Aug 12, 2022
@sozercan
Copy link
Member

sozercan commented Aug 12, 2022

@tkent Gatekeeper has some considerations documented here https://open-policy-agent.github.io/gatekeeper/website/docs/failing-closed/#considerations, this is especially important since you are swapping nodes. Fail closed can cause circular dependencies in your clusters.

@tkent
Copy link
Author

tkent commented Aug 16, 2022

Thanks @aramase!

@sozercan - I appreciate the warning. Hopefully, in a future version of k8s, we'll be able to define scope rules that exclude the pods providing the webhook to avoid the chicken-and-egg problem (kubernetes#92157).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request webhook
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants