-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 352
Fix leak managed/owned security group on Service update with BYO SG #1209
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
Draft
mtulio
wants to merge
3
commits into
kubernetes:master
Choose a base branch
from
mtulio:fix-1208-byosg-update
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
why not detect this at the top of the loop and then
continue
if true so that we avoid the other calculations?Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
my initial thought was to revoke all rules before validating ownership, but I've since reconsidered. That approach indeed require more calculations/calls.
This brings up a new question: could orphan rules, created by our controller, exist in a cluster's SGs (e.g., node SGs)? If so, users won't be able to delete these SGs without manually removing the orphan rules first.
I believe the answer is yes, and the function
buildSecurityGroupRuleReferences
returns the SGs with tagging boolean, if we'll introduce an extra check, well make it consistent with theupdateInstanceSecurityGroupsForLoadBalancer()
logic: skip when rules' SG which is not part of the cluster. If user intentionally, manually, referenced a rule to non-cluster's SG the controller will raise an error with dependency violation. Is that an accurate behavior?Let me revisit with your first suggestion it in the next scan.
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.
I reviewed the code, we can't return early to prevent not removing dependencies, for example in the BYO SG scenario (isOwned==false) we still need to remove references to it's SG in the cluster's SG (node's SG), otherwise we'll leak rules.
To address my comment above, I added a new check in the loop checking if the group is part of the cluster, and revoking rules on on those, following the behavior of the referenced function updateInstanceSecurityGroupsForLoadBalancer().
LMK if that's accurate to you.
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.
gotcha, that makes sense to me.