-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 87
Add default deny-all NetworkPolicy for the operator namespace #2221
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ | ||
| apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1 | ||
| kind: NetworkPolicy | ||
| metadata: | ||
| labels: | ||
| app: kuadrant | ||
| name: kuadrant-operator-default-deny-all | ||
| spec: | ||
| podSelector: {} | ||
| policyTypes: | ||
| - Ingress |
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ | ||
| apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1 | ||
| kind: NetworkPolicy | ||
| metadata: | ||
| name: default-deny-all | ||
| spec: | ||
| podSelector: {} | ||
| policyTypes: | ||
| - Ingress | ||
|
Comment on lines
+6
to
+8
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. 🩺 Stability & Availability | 🟠 Major | 🏗️ Heavy lift Do not release the deny policy before the allow policies. The policy selects every pod and provides no ingress allow rule. Applying it before the dependent policies are available will deny required pod-to-pod traffic. (kubernetes.io)
📍 Affects 4 files
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents |
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -44,3 +44,4 @@ resources: | |
| - ../crd | ||
| - ../rbac | ||
| - ../manager | ||
| - deny-all.yaml | ||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
🔎 Supported by static analysis
🏁 Script executed:
Repository: Kuadrant/kuadrant-operator
Length of output: 261
🏁 Script executed:
Repository: Kuadrant/kuadrant-operator
Length of output: 15411
Synchronise the documented Operator SDK version.
Makefile:265selectsv1.42.3, butdoc/overviews/development.md:5declaresv1.32.0as required. Update the guide, or state explicitly thatv1.32.0is the supported minimum.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
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.
Curious, is there anything specific we need from these new Operator SDK versions, or just a good time to do a bump?
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.
🧩 Analysis chain
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 10593
@jjkiely, I found no evidence that the default-denyNetworkPolicyneeds Operator SDKv1.42.3.The PR has one commit, and its message only describes the network policy. The SDK-related changes update the configured SDK version and generated bundle builder annotations. The CSV also gets a new
createdAtvalue. This is consistent with regenerating the bundle using a newer local toolchain.So this looks like a routine SDK bump, not a functional dependency. The PR author should confirm the intended reason. The documentation should still state the selected version, or clearly define the supported minimum.
You are interacting with an AI system.
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.
Weird, didn't even know coderabbit could do that, was talking to you Jim
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.
@jjkiely, sorry. I misunderstood the conversation and replied when you were addressing Jim. I will not add further analysis to this thread.You are interacting with an AI system.