Skip to content
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

etcd-backup: modify README due to PSA #87

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ibihim
Copy link

@ibihim ibihim commented Jan 18, 2024

What is this PR About?

Discourages customers to use openshift-prefixed-namespaces.

Creating an OpenShift pre-fixed namespace will break in the future, if the namespace is not labeled manually.
With the introduction of PodSecurityAdmission (PSA) namespaces will have the ability to define the security level namespace-wide.
As SCCs are more fine-grained, we defined a label syncer controller that takes care of customer workloads and sets the PSA values accordingly.
This doesn't happen for OpenShift pre-fixed namespaces as we expect that every Team working on OpenShift is defining their security posture consciously.

In addition, Helm doesn't support to create namespaces with labels.

How do we test this?

kubectl get namespace system-etcd-backup -o jsonpath='{.metadata.labels}' | grep 'pod-security.kubernetes.io/'

Should return labels that are set to privileged.

cc: @redhat-cop/casl

OpenShift manages customer workloads with the label syncer. Such that it
is taken care on behalf of the user.
For OpenShift namespaces, this is not true. It is expected that every
team decides consciously their security posture. It is not expected that
customer use that kind of namespaces!
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant