We believe this API is more forwards compatible with future secrets management
use cases. The implementation is a cry for help, but I was trying to follow the
previously established pattern of encapsulating the secret generation
functionality to a single group of packages.
This commit makes a breaking change to the current OIDCProvider API, but that
OIDCProvider API was added after the latest release, so it is technically still
in development until we release, and therefore we can continue to thrash on it.
I also took this opportunity to make some things private that didn't need to be
public.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Keesler <akeesler@vmware.com>
This forced us to add labels to the CSRF cookie secret, just as we do
for other Supervisor secrets. Yay tests.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Keesler <akeesler@vmware.com>
- Also add more log statements to the controller
- Also have the controller apply a rate limit to itself, to avoid
having a very chatty controller that runs way more often than is
needed.
- Also add an integration test for the controller's behavior.
Signed-off-by: Margo Crawford <margaretc@vmware.com>
This also sets the CSRF cookie Secret's OwnerReference to the Pod's grandparent
Deployment so that when the Deployment is cleaned up, then the Secret is as
well.
Obviously this controller implementation has a lot of issues, but it will at
least get us started.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Keesler <akeesler@vmware.com>
This default matches the static client we have defined in the supervisor, which will be the correct value in most cases.
Signed-off-by: Matt Moyer <moyerm@vmware.com>
We decided that we don't really need these in every case, since we'll be returning username and groups in a custom claim.
Signed-off-by: Matt Moyer <moyerm@vmware.com>
This will allow it to be imported by Go code outside of our repository, which was something we have planned for since this code was written.
Signed-off-by: Matt Moyer <moyerm@vmware.com>
I tried to follow a principle of encapsulation here - we can still default to
peeps making connections to 80/443 on a Service object, but internally we will
use 8080/8443.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Keesler <akeesler@vmware.com>
- Setting a Secret in the supervisor's namespace with a special name
will cause it to get picked up and served as the supervisor's TLS
cert for any request which does not have a matching SNI cert.
- This is especially useful for when there is no DNS record for an
issuer and the user will be accessing it via IP address. This
is not how we would expect it to be used in production, but it
might be useful for other cases.
- Includes a new integration test
- Also suppress all of the warnings about ignoring the error returned by
Close() in lines like `defer x.Close()` to make GoLand happier
- TLS certificates can be configured on the OIDCProviderConfig using
the `secretName` field.
- When listening for incoming TLS connections, choose the TLS cert
based on the SNI hostname of the incoming request.
- Because SNI hostname information on incoming requests does not include
the port number of the request, we add a validation that
OIDCProviderConfigs where the issuer hostnames (not including port
number) are the same must use the same `secretName`.
- Note that this approach does not yet support requests made to an
IP address instead of a hostname. Also note that `localhost` is
considered a hostname by SNI.
- Add port 443 as a container port to the pod spec.
- A new controller watches for TLS secrets and caches them in memory.
That same in-memory cache is used while servicing incoming connections
on the TLS port.
- Make it easy to configure both port 443 and/or port 80 for various
Service types using our ytt templates for the supervisor.
- When deploying to kind, add another nodeport and forward it to the
host on another port to expose our new HTTPS supervisor port to the
host.
This was hidden behind a `pinniped alpha` hidden subcommand, but we're comfortable enough with the CLI flag interface now to promote it.
Signed-off-by: Matt Moyer <moyerm@vmware.com>
Based on our experiences today with GKE, it will be easier for our users
to configure Ingress health checks if the healthz endpoint is available
on the same public port as the OIDC endpoints.
Also add an integration test for the healthz endpoint now that it is
public.
Also add the optional `containers[].ports.containerPort` to the
supervisor Deployment because the GKE docs say that GKE will look
at that field while inferring how to invoke the health endpoint. See
https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/concepts/ingress#def_inf_hc
