-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40.3k
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
[PodSecurity] hostProcess baseline check #103382
[PodSecurity] hostProcess baseline check #103382
Conversation
@liggitt: This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject 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. |
62b1cb6
to
596b8e1
Compare
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: liggitt 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
fixtureKey{level: api.LevelBaseline, version: api.MajorMinorVersion(1, 0), check: "hostProcess"}, | ||
fixtureData_1_0, | ||
) | ||
// TODO: register another set of fixtures with passing test cases that explicitly set hostProcess=false at pod and container level once hostProcess is GA |
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.
Can't we add these tests now? They should pass either way (even if the field is dropped).
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.
requests trying to explicitly set hostProcess fields on creation get rejected when the feature is off; discussed with sig-windows and were hard-pressed to think of a way that dropping the data and failing at runtime improved the user experience. discussion at #99576 (comment)
cc : @jsturtevant @immuzz |
596b8e1
to
ac4bb88
Compare
/remove-sig api-machinery |
/lgtm |
/retest |
/retest |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #103381
Even though hostProcess is alpha, we can still forbid
true
values in the field in the baseline policySpecial notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
/cc @tallclair @marosset
/sig auth windows