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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat: support webhook provider in Chart #4032
feat: support webhook provider in Chart #4032
Changes from 16 commits
7e22345
9484b4c
07023d6
7c093c5
b793897
185f7e2
9297b9b
9d1c0aa
c2f1aa4
ea1e003
b90ff49
55156d6
1bdc4d7
fc94c26
e423ca2
bc69c01
c5e7933
3e56c73
9299b59
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Secrets should not be shared across the main container and sidecar. They should only be readable to containers that need them in order to reduce the risk of compromise. Most of the time (when running a webhook provider) only the webhook sidecar will need secrets, though there are a few obscure sources that could need secrets.
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.
Oh That's right !
🤔 Wdyt then about mounting the secret only on external-dns for in-tree provider and only on the sidecar for webhook providers ?
cc @stevehipwell @mrueg
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 would be strongly in favour of not supporting
secretConfiguration
for the webhook sidecar as secrets should preferably be managed outside of the Helm chart and then interacted with via theextraVolumes
&extraVolumeMounts
values.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.
The
cloudfoundry
source takes a password, but I suppose that can only come in through args, not a mounted secret. So perhaps we could say it would be unlikely for a future source to require a mounted secret.I wouldn't want to have
secretConfiguration
only work for in-tree providers. That would be an odd discontinuity.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 added specific extraVolumeMounts for sidecar with 9109597
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 still don't think we should be explicitly using
secretConfiguration
here, the secret COULD be mounted by theextraVolumeMounts
but we should be recommending external secrets be used if needed.