Previously, when triggering a Tilt reload via a *.go file change, a reload would
take ~13 seconds and we would see this error message in the Tilt logs for each
component.
Live Update failed with unexpected error:
command terminated with exit code 2
Falling back to a full image build + deploy
Now, Tilt should reload images a lot faster (~3 seconds) since we are running
the images as root.
Note! Reloading the Concierge component still takes ~13 seconds because there
are 2 containers running in the Concierge namespace that use the Concierge
image: the main Concierge app and the kube cert agent pod. Tilt can't live
reload both of these at once, so the reload takes longer and we see this error
message.
Will not perform Live Update because:
Error retrieving container info: can only get container info for a single pod; image target image:image/concierge has 2 pods
Falling back to a full image build + deploy
Signed-off-by: Andrew Keesler <akeesler@vmware.com>
This change updates our clients to always set an owner ref when:
1. The operation is a create
2. The object does not already have an owner ref set
Signed-off-by: Monis Khan <mok@vmware.com>
The value is correctly validated as `secrets.pinniped.dev/oidc-client` elsewhere, only this comment was wrong.
Signed-off-by: Matt Moyer <moyerm@vmware.com>
I saw this message in our CI logs, which led me to this fix.
could not update status: OIDCProvider.config.supervisor.pinniped.dev "acceptance-provider" is invalid: status.status: Unsupported value: "SameIssuerHostMustUseSameSecret": supported values: "Success", "Duplicate", "Invalid"
Also - correct an integration test error message that was misleading.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Keesler <akeesler@vmware.com>
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 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>
We want to have our APIs respond to `kubectl get pinniped`, and we shouldn't use `all` because we don't think most average users should have permission to see our API types, which means if we put our types there, they would get an error from `kubectl get all`.
I also added some tests to assert these properties on all `*.pinniped.dev` API resources.
Signed-off-by: Matt Moyer <moyerm@vmware.com>
This is helpful for us, amongst other users, because we want to enable "debug"
logging whenever we deploy components for testing.
See a5643e3 for addition of log level.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Keesler <akeesler@vmware.com>
This is needed on clusters with PodSecurityPolicy enabled by default, but should be harmless in other cases.
This is generally needed because a restrictive PodSecurityPolicy will usually otherwise prevent the `hostPath` volume mount needed by the dynamically-created cert agent pod.
Signed-off-by: Matt Moyer <moyerm@vmware.com>
This is the beginning of a change to add cpu/memory limits to our pods.
We are doing this because some consumers require this, and it is generally
a good practice.
The limits == requests for "Guaranteed" QoS.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Keesler <akeesler@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>
This is the first of a few related changes that re-organize our API after the big recent changes that introduced the supervisor component.
Signed-off-by: Matt Moyer <moyerm@vmware.com>
- 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.
- When two different Issuers have the same host (i.e. they differ
only by path) then they must have the same secretName. This is because
it wouldn't make sense for there to be two different TLS certificates
for one host. Find any that do not have the same secret name to
put an error status on them and to avoid serving OIDC endpoints for
them. The host comparison is case-insensitive.
- Issuer hostnames should be treated as case-insensitive, because
DNS hostnames are case-insensitive. So https://me.com and
https://mE.cOm are duplicate issuers. However, paths are
case-sensitive, so https://me.com/A and https://me.com/a are
different issuers. Fixed this in the issuer validations and in the
OIDC Manager's request router logic.
When using kind we forward the node's port to the host, so we only
really care about the `nodePort` value. For acceptance clusters,
we put an Ingress in front of a NodePort Service, so we only really
care about the `port` value.
