Structured AuthorizationConfiguration #11852
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/L
chadswen
force-pushed
the
structured-authorization-config-file
branch
from
8876c39 to
12e0f3a
Compare
|
/ok-to-test |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
ok-to-test
|
/retest |
chadswen
changed the title
VannTen
requested changes
Jan 6, 2025
roles/kubernetes/control-plane/templates/apiserver-authorization-config.yaml.j2
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Adds the ability to configure the Kubernetes API server with a structured authorization configuration file. Structured AuthorizationConfiguration is a new feature in Kubernetes v1.29+ (GA in v1.32) that configures the API server's authorization modes with a structured configuration file. AuthorizationConfiguration files offer features not available with the `--authorization-mode` flag, although Kubespray supports both methods and authorization-mode remains the default for now. Note: Because the `--authorization-config` and `--authorization-mode` flags are mutually exclusive, the `authorization_modes` ansible variable is ignored when `kube_apiserver_use_authorization_config_file` is set to true. The two features cannot be used at the same time. Docs: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/authorization/#configuring-the-api-server-using-an-authorization-config-file Blog + Examples: https://kubernetes.io/blog/2024/04/26/multi-webhook-and-modular-authorization-made-much-easier/ KEP: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-auth/3221-structured-authorization-configuration I tested this all the way back to k8s v1.29 when AuthorizationConfiguration was first introduced as an alpha feature, although v1.29 required some additional workarounds with `kubeadm_patches`, which I included in example comments. I also included some example comments with CEL expressions that allowed me to configure webhook authorizers without hitting kubeadm 1.29+ issues that block cluster creation and upgrades such as this one: kubernetes/cloud-provider-openstack#2575. My workaround configures the webhook to ignore requests from kubeadm and system components, which prevents fatal errors from webhooks that are not available yet, and should be authorized by Node or RBAC anyway.
chadswen
force-pushed
the
structured-authorization-config-file
branch
from
12e0f3a to
c0fb5b1
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/M
|
Thanks, looks great ! |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: chadswen, VannTen 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
Possible follow-up : validation of the authz_config with ansible.utils.validate. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Adds the ability to configure the Kubernetes API server with a structured authorization configuration file.
Structured AuthorizationConfiguration is a new feature in Kubernetes v1.29+ (GA in v1.32) that configures the API server's authorization modes with a structured configuration file. AuthorizationConfiguration files offer features not available with the
--authorization-modeflag, although Kubespray supports both methods and authorization-mode remains the default for now.Because the
--authorization-configand--authorization-modeflags are mutually exclusive, theauthorization_modesansible variable is ignored whenkube_apiserver_use_authorization_config_fileis set to true. The two features cannot be used at the same time.Docs: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/authorization/#configuring-the-api-server-using-an-authorization-config-file
Blog + Examples: https://kubernetes.io/blog/2024/04/26/multi-webhook-and-modular-authorization-made-much-easier/
KEP: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-auth/3221-structured-authorization-configuration
Not to be confused with Structured Authentication, which is tracked in #11834. This is an authz feature, the other issue is authn.
Special notes for your reviewer:
I tested this all the way back to k8s v1.29 when AuthorizationConfiguration was first introduced as an alpha feature, although v1.29 required some additional workarounds with
kubeadm_patches, which I included in example comments.I also included some example comments with CEL expressions that allowed me to configure webhook authorizers without hitting kubeadm 1.29+ issues that block cluster creation and upgrades such as this one: kubernetes/cloud-provider-openstack#2575 . My workaround configures the webhook to ignore requests from kubeadm and system components, which prevents fatal errors from webhooks that are not available yet, and should be authorized by Node or RBAC anyway.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: