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

Give replicaset controller patch permission on pods #39961

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 16, 2017

Conversation

liggitt
Copy link
Member

@liggitt liggitt commented Jan 16, 2017

Needed for AdoptPod/ReleasePod

Fixes denials seen in autoscaling test log:
RBAC DENY: user "system:serviceaccount:kube-system:replicaset-controller" groups [system:serviceaccounts system:serviceaccounts:kube-system system:authenticated] cannot "patch" on "pods./"

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Jan 16, 2017
@k8s-reviewable
Copy link

This change is Reviewable

@0xmichalis
Copy link
Contributor

The deployment controller probably needs PATCH for replica sets too

@0xmichalis
Copy link
Contributor

0xmichalis commented Jan 16, 2017

The deployment controller probably needs PATCH for replica sets too

For the same reason with why you update here

@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot added size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. release-note-label-needed labels Jan 16, 2017
@liggitt
Copy link
Member Author

liggitt commented Jan 16, 2017

The deployment controller probably needs PATCH for replica sets too

For the same reason with what you update here

@Kargakis I'd rather see how #36897 is resolved first... I don't think patching in controller refs is a great model to follow. Replicationcontrollers and replicasets are already using the patch method, so we can't break that, but I don't want to propagate it.

@0xmichalis
Copy link
Contributor

@Kargakis I'd rather see how #36897 is resolved first... I don't think patching in controller refs is a great model to follow

This is unrelated to #36897. We have already added "server-side" deletion for Deployments which means we patch replica sets in the deployment controller in master but I don't see the controller having the permission to do so and I am wondering how the e2e tests work cc: @caesarxuchao @krmayankk

@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Jan 16, 2017

Huh, I didn't dig into why (it already had update and delete), but I saw this too: #39963

@liggitt
Copy link
Member Author

liggitt commented Jan 16, 2017

ok, if it's already in use :-/

@0xmichalis
Copy link
Contributor

How troublesome is permission reconcilation (removals specifically) ?

@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Jan 16, 2017

How troublesome is permission reconcilation (removals specifically) ?

They will never happen automatically and will realistically never be run.

@liggitt
Copy link
Member Author

liggitt commented Jan 16, 2017

How troublesome is permission reconcilation (removals specifically) ?

We'd likely never do it automatically on upgrade. It would probably be manual, which means it probably would rarely actually happen.

@deadliggitt
Copy link

I agree

@liggitt liggitt added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed release-note-label-needed labels Jan 16, 2017
@deads2k deads2k added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 16, 2017
@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants