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

Gatekeeper policy to replace deprecated IAMPolicy Controller #453

Conversation

brian-jarvis
Copy link
Contributor

This Gatekeeper Policy is intended to match the behavior of the deprecated ACM IAMPolicy Controller.

It will allow an administrator to monitor and alert if ClusterRoleBindings with the specified ClusterRole exceed the maximum number of users. In the case where a Group is specified in the ClusterRoleBinding the number of users in the group are counted. ServiceAccounts are ignored.

severity: low
---
apiVersion: cluster.open-cluster-management.io/v1beta1
kind: Placement
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for using placement instead of placementrule. For new policies we are planning on not delivering the placement or placementbinding in the donated policy. Curious if you have feedback regarding that too.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think not delivering the placement is the correct way to go. The placements make it feel like it is a complete working solution when the user would still need to create the namespace binding. I think we see a lot of issues pop up from that binding missing.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the feedback. Can you confirm you intended to say you think we should continue to provide the binding and a placement?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree to the plan to not deliver the placement and binding. I left them here since that plan is not final. I can remove them if we want to start now with not delivering them. I was expecting you would want to have a formal notice and documentation before it was implemented.

@brian-jarvis brian-jarvis marked this pull request as ready for review February 6, 2024 03:45
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from gparvin and mprahl February 6, 2024 03:45
@gparvin
Copy link
Member

gparvin commented Feb 7, 2024

/cc @dhaiducek @yiraeChristineKim
The rego looks ok to me but thought you would be interested.

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 15, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: brian-jarvis, gparvin

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@yiraeChristineKim
Copy link
Contributor

To me looks great!! wow, curious Do a lot of customers want to limit clusterbinding numbers?

@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 89fe5a3 into open-cluster-management-io:main Feb 15, 2024
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants