ADR 1: Use secret types to select the authentication scheme #5110
+34
−35
Conversation
This file contains 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
twz123
force-pushed
the
use-secret-types
branch
from
990cb15
to
e98c3de
Compare
ricardomaraschini
requested changes
Oct 11, 2024
|
|
||
| The `authorization` entry is used as is, with its content placed directly into | ||
| the `Authorization` header. For example, a secret like the following will make | ||
| Autopilot set the `Authorization` header to `Bearer abc123def456ghi789jkl0`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Somehow we lost the example so the "following" part here makes no sense anymore (maybe it should be "previous" now).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, it has to be reversed 🙈
| `InsecureSkipTLSVerify` on a Go HTTP client. | ||
| - The `InsecureSkipTLSVerify` property will be valid for both `oci://` and | ||
| `https://` protocols. | ||
| `https://` protocols. It has no effect for the `http://` protocol. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You may want to add some notes here regarding the new oci+http introduced by #5107 as well.
twz123
force-pushed
the
use-secret-types
branch
from
e98c3de
to
5fded92
Compare
ricardomaraschini
previously approved these changes
Oct 11, 2024
|
This pull request has merge conflicts that need to be resolved. |
The current version of this ADR proposes to use one secret type per protocol, which is somewhat limiting. It would be reasonable to consider the use of a basic auth secret for authentication to an OCI registry, for instance. Also, the use of the secret type to select the authentication scheme would help to reduce any potential ambiguity. In the case of OCI registries, the ADR already explicitly mentions the dockerconfigjson secret type. For HTTP[S], it falls back on the Opaque type and attempts to figure out the appropriate authentication method based on the contents of the secret. This is inconsistent with the way it works for OCI, and can be made consistent by adding a custom secret type for the case that k0s wants to cover, but for which there's no predefined type available upstream. Signed-off-by: Tom Wieczorek <[email protected]>
twz123
force-pushed
the
use-secret-types
branch
from
5fded92
to
b3a87de
Compare
ricardomaraschini
approved these changes
Oct 15, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Description
This is a follow-up to #4524 (comment) and #4524 (comment). I think using secret types more could help in making the API better. WDYT?
The current version of this ADR proposes to use one secret type per protocol, which is somewhat limiting. It would be reasonable to consider the use of a basic auth secret for authentication to an OCI registry, for instance. Also, the use of the secret type to select the authentication scheme would help to reduce any potential ambiguity.
In the case of OCI registries, the ADR already explicitly mentions the dockerconfigjson secret type. For HTTP[S], it falls back on the Opaque type and attempts to figure out the appropriate authentication method based on the contents of the secret. This is inconsistent with the way it works for OCI, and can be made consistent by adding a custom secret type for the case that k0s wants to cover, but for which there's no predefined type available upstream.
Type of change
How Has This Been Tested?
Checklist: