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

Add non-root end-to-end test cases to credentials test suite #327

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

unexge
Copy link
Contributor

@unexge unexge commented Dec 27, 2024

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

Copy link
Contributor

@jiaeenie jiaeenie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shall we change this line as well? Such as replacing "uid=1000", "gid=2000" with

fmt.Sprintf("uid=%d", defaultNonRootUser),
fmt.Sprintf("gid=%d", defaultNonRootGroup))

And this line and this line to use the variable defaultNonRootGroup.

@unexge unexge force-pushed the unexge/credential-tests-non-root branch from 540618a to 1c0014d Compare January 3, 2025 14:13
@unexge
Copy link
Contributor Author

unexge commented Jan 3, 2025

Good suggestion @jiaeenie! Addressed with 1c0014d

@jiaeenie jiaeenie requested a review from muddyfish January 6, 2025 10:07

return pod, sa
}

It("should use pod's service account's read-only role", func(ctx context.Context) {
pod, _ := createPodWithServiceAccountAndPolicy(ctx, iamPolicyS3ReadOnlyAccess, false)
pod, _ := createPodWithServiceAccountAndPolicy(ctx, iamPolicyS3ReadOnlyAccess, false, false)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a way to pass in keyword arguments here? Right now I can't understand what these boolean arguments are for.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Go doesn't support named arguments, usually structs are used if such a thing is desired, but I think it'd make this more verbose. Since this is a local helper function and not used outside this test-case, I think I'd prefer current one.

tests/e2e-kubernetes/testsuites/cache.go Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/e2e-kubernetes/testsuites/cache.go Show resolved Hide resolved
}
// We need to set this false at Pod-level as `chmod-cache-dir` needs to run as `root` and this
// would prevent container creation if its true.
pod.Spec.SecurityContext.RunAsNonRoot = ptr.To(false)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why are we always changing this even if the test explicitly set the security context?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you instantiate Kubernetes testing framework with LevelRestricted, it sets this to true, meaning all containers in the Pod must run as non-root (i.e., not 0).

Since this is a generic helper function and gets called from different security levels, we're just making sure to set it to false, so we can spawn our privileged container needed to create cache directory. The other containers created for this Pod would probably have their RunAsUser set to non-root (due to security level), so we just need to remove this restriction at Pod-level for our container.

This whole ensureCacheDirExistsInNode is very hacky due to fact Mountpoint running in the host and hopefully this will go away with running Mountpoint inside container.

@unexge unexge force-pushed the unexge/credential-tests-non-root branch from 1c0014d to a105393 Compare January 14, 2025 16:43
@unexge unexge force-pushed the unexge/credential-tests-non-root branch from a105393 to 12d1737 Compare January 21, 2025 10:35
@unexge unexge requested a review from a team as a code owner January 21, 2025 10:35
@unexge unexge requested review from muddyfish and jiaeenie January 21, 2025 10:36
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.

3 participants