Add support for disk encryption key in GCPMachine #1137

bfournie · 2024-02-09T12:32:48Z

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Add support for the disk encryption key for the boot disk and and additional disks in the GCP machine.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Please confirm that if this PR changes any image versions, then that's the sole change this PR makes.

TODOs:

squashed commits
includes documentation
adds unit tests

Release note:

Add support for disk encryption key in GCPMachine

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-02-09T12:32:56Z

Welcome @bfournie!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-gcp 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-gcp has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-02-09T12:32:57Z

Hi @bfournie. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

api/v1beta1/gcpmachine_types.go

damdo

LGTM bare API comments from @JoelSpeed
Thanks @bfournie

damdo · 2024-02-12T16:16:19Z

/ok-to-test
/assign @cpanato @richardcase

cpanato · 2024-02-12T17:02:13Z

/test ls

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-02-12T17:02:16Z

@cpanato: The specified target(s) for /test were not found.
The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-build
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-e2e-test
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-make
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-test
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-verify

The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs:

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-apidiff
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-capi-e2e
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-conformance
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-conformance-ci-artifacts
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-coverage
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-coverage-release-1-4
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-coverage-release-1-5
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-e2e-workload-upgrade

Use /test all to run the following jobs that were automatically triggered:

pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-apidiff
pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-build
pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-e2e-test
pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-make
pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-test
pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-verify

In response to this:

/test ls

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

cpanato · 2024-02-12T17:02:23Z

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-gcp-conformance

api/v1beta1/gcpmachine_types.go

JoelSpeed · 2024-02-14T14:13:52Z

api/v1beta1/gcpmachine_types.go

+	// KMSKeyName is the name of the encryption key that is stored in Google Cloud KMS. For example:
+	// "kmsKeyName": "projects/kms_project_id/locations/region/keyRings/key_region/cryptoKeys/key
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:Required
+	KMSKeyName string `json:"kmsKeyName,omitempty"`


Does GCP specify any constraints for the name of the KMS key? Upper case? Lower case? Certain special characters allowed? MInimum or maximum length? All of this could be validated at admission time to prevent errors down the line

So unless I'm missing something I don't see constraints defined in the API https://pkg.go.dev/google.golang.org/api/compute/v1#CustomerEncryptionKey or in validations. I'm leery to add additional limit checks here unless its well defined.

When trying to create a key, it gives me

Key names can contain letters, numbers, underscores (_), and hyphens (-). Keys can't be renamed or deleted.

I believe that is also true of project IDs and regions so we probably can limit to that selection plus the slashes required

Thanks for testing that @JoelSpeed.

Thanks, I'll add a check in the webhook.Validator.

Did the rule cost come up before or after you added the maxlength? The maxlength is an important factor in the rule cost estimations

@JoelSpeed - you make a good point about kubebuilder validations/CEL vs webhook validation. I think part of the current reliance on webhook validation in CAPI is historical because CEL wasn't available for more complex validation logic.

The rule cost error came up when using the 3 XValidation rules. With MaxLength validation plus one XValidation it did not cause an error.

I was speaking with @vincepri last week and we think there's merit in having a community wide conversation about API review and CEL vs webhook validations. In a couple of weeks I have some time to put together some ideas which I'll bring to the community call for discussion

Sounds good. Hopefully we can get this merged and revisit the validations after the discussion.

api/v1beta1/gcpmachine_types.go

api/v1beta1/gcpmachine_webhook.go

api/v1beta1/gcpmachine_types.go

netlify · 2024-02-25T22:56:56Z

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-gcp ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`0c780af`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-gcp/deploys/65df64752a95ad0008f7e7b1
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1137--kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-gcp.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

JoelSpeed · 2024-02-26T11:45:02Z

api/v1beta1/gcpmachine_types.go

+	// KMSKeyName is the name of the encryption key that is stored in Google Cloud KMS. For example:
+	// "kmsKeyName": "projects/kms_project_id/locations/region/keyRings/key_region/cryptoKeys/key
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:Required
+	KMSKeyName string `json:"kmsKeyName,omitempty"`


I was speaking with @vincepri last week and we think there's merit in having a community wide conversation about API review and CEL vs webhook validations. In a couple of weeks I have some time to put together some ideas which I'll bring to the community call for discussion

api/v1beta1/gcpmachine_types.go

JoelSpeed

/lgtm

cpanato

thanks

/approve

/hold for @richardcase as he did some reviews as well

damdo

/lgtm

Let's see what @richardcase thinks

richardcase · 2024-02-28T13:07:17Z

Looks good to me, thanks @bfournie . Good discussion on CEL as part of this 👍

/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-02-28T13:07:24Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bfournie, cpanato, richardcase

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:

~~OWNERS~~ [cpanato,richardcase]

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

richardcase · 2024-02-28T13:07:34Z

/unhold

richardcase · 2024-02-28T13:10:35Z

/retest

damdo · 2024-02-28T15:26:29Z

I asked @bfournie to rebase this on top of main once #1157 merges.
I suspect something in the tooling is breaking (could be the Go version as I've seen this break with Netlify already recently).
So a rebase could help here.

Add support for the disk encryption key for the boot disk and and additional disks.

bfournie · 2024-02-28T16:49:34Z

/retest

damdo

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot added do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Feb 9, 2024

k8s-ci-robot requested review from cpanato and richardcase February 9, 2024 12:32

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Feb 9, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 9, 2024

JoelSpeed reviewed Feb 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

api/v1beta1/gcpmachine_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

damdo reviewed Feb 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned cpanato Feb 12, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. label Feb 12, 2024

k8s-ci-robot assigned richardcase Feb 12, 2024

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Feb 12, 2024

bfournie force-pushed the disk-encryption branch from 3f82a49 to 82942c4 Compare February 12, 2024 19:56

k8s-ci-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 12, 2024

JoelSpeed reviewed Feb 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

bfournie force-pushed the disk-encryption branch from 82942c4 to 9c6f36a Compare February 13, 2024 16:22

JoelSpeed reviewed Feb 14, 2024

View reviewed changes

bfournie force-pushed the disk-encryption branch 2 times, most recently from a2d0fb3 to 3b0fe01 Compare February 15, 2024 00:41

richardcase reviewed Feb 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

api/v1beta1/gcpmachine_types.go Show resolved Hide resolved

bfournie force-pushed the disk-encryption branch from 3b0fe01 to 28e4a9c Compare February 15, 2024 20:47

bfournie force-pushed the disk-encryption branch from 28e4a9c to f1f917b Compare February 25, 2024 22:56

bfournie force-pushed the disk-encryption branch from f1f917b to b2d5674 Compare February 26, 2024 00:35

JoelSpeed reviewed Feb 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

bfournie force-pushed the disk-encryption branch from b2d5674 to 2148ab3 Compare February 26, 2024 13:55

JoelSpeed reviewed Feb 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned JoelSpeed Feb 26, 2024

cpanato approved these changes Feb 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Feb 27, 2024

damdo reviewed Feb 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned damdo Feb 27, 2024

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Feb 28, 2024

Add support for disk encryption key in GCPMachine

0c780af

Add support for the disk encryption key for the boot disk and and additional disks.

bfournie force-pushed the disk-encryption branch from 2148ab3 to 0c780af Compare February 28, 2024 16:50

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 28, 2024

damdo reviewed Feb 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 28, 2024

k8s-ci-robot merged commit be17146 into kubernetes-sigs:main Feb 28, 2024
16 checks passed

k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.1.0 milestone Feb 28, 2024

bfournie deleted the disk-encryption branch February 28, 2024 17:55

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add support for disk encryption key in GCPMachine #1137

Add support for disk encryption key in GCPMachine #1137

bfournie commented Feb 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 9, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 9, 2024

damdo left a comment

damdo commented Feb 12, 2024

cpanato commented Feb 12, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 12, 2024

cpanato commented Feb 12, 2024

JoelSpeed Feb 14, 2024

bfournie Feb 15, 2024

JoelSpeed Feb 15, 2024

richardcase Feb 15, 2024

bfournie Feb 15, 2024

JoelSpeed Feb 16, 2024

richardcase Feb 16, 2024

bfournie Feb 16, 2024

JoelSpeed Feb 26, 2024

bfournie Feb 26, 2024

netlify bot commented Feb 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JoelSpeed Feb 26, 2024

JoelSpeed left a comment

cpanato left a comment

damdo left a comment

richardcase commented Feb 28, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 28, 2024

richardcase commented Feb 28, 2024

richardcase commented Feb 28, 2024

damdo commented Feb 28, 2024

bfournie commented Feb 28, 2024

damdo left a comment

Add support for disk encryption key in GCPMachine #1137

Add support for disk encryption key in GCPMachine #1137

Conversation

bfournie commented Feb 9, 2024 • edited Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 9, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 9, 2024

damdo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

damdo commented Feb 12, 2024

cpanato commented Feb 12, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 12, 2024

cpanato commented Feb 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

netlify bot commented Feb 25, 2024 • edited Loading

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-gcp ready!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JoelSpeed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cpanato left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

damdo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

richardcase commented Feb 28, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 28, 2024

richardcase commented Feb 28, 2024

richardcase commented Feb 28, 2024

damdo commented Feb 28, 2024

bfournie commented Feb 28, 2024

damdo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bfournie commented Feb 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

netlify bot commented Feb 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading