feat(pc): add providerconfig example for aws eks pod identity feature #1254
There are no files selected for viewing
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ | ||
| # SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2024 The Crossplane Authors <https://crossplane.io> | ||
| # | ||
| # SPDX-License-Identifier: CC0-1.0 | ||
|
|
||
| apiVersion: aws.upbound.io/v1beta1 | ||
| kind: ProviderConfig | ||
| metadata: | ||
| name: pod-identity | ||
| spec: | ||
| credentials: | ||
| source: WebIdentity | ||
| webIdentity: | ||
| roleARN: arn:aws:iam::123456789012:role/pod-identity-role | ||
| tokenConfig: | ||
| fs: | ||
| path: /var/run/secrets/pods.eks.amazonaws.com/serviceaccount/eks-pod-identity-token | ||
| source: Filesystem | ||
| --- | ||
| apiVersion: iam.aws.upbound.io/v1beta1 | ||
| kind: OpenIDConnectProvider | ||
| metadata: | ||
| name: pod-identity | ||
| spec: | ||
| forProvider: | ||
| clientIdList: | ||
| - pods.eks.amazonaws.com | ||
| thumbprintList: | ||
| - 9e99a48a9960b14926bb7f3b02e22da2b0ab7280 | ||
| url: oidc.eks.<REGION>.amazonaws.com/id/<UNIQUE_ID> | ||
| --- | ||
| apiVersion: iam.aws.upbound.io/v1beta1 | ||
| kind: Role | ||
| metadata: | ||
| name: pod-identity-role | ||
| labels: | ||
| testing.upbound.io/example-name: pod-identity | ||
| spec: | ||
| forProvider: | ||
| assumeRolePolicy: | | ||
| { | ||
| "Version": "2012-10-17", | ||
| "Statement": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "Effect": "Allow", | ||
| "Principal": { | ||
| "Service": "pods.eks.amazonaws.com" | ||
| }, | ||
| "Action": [ | ||
| "sts:AssumeRole", | ||
| "sts:TagSession" | ||
| ] | ||
|
Comment on lines
+44
to
+51
There was a problem hiding this comment. Why are there no conditions in the trust policy? If we're creating an example for others to follow, we should demonstrate best practices, like ensuring that only the specified pods can assume the role. As I read it, this trust policy allows any pod in any EKS cluster in this aws account to assume the role. There was a problem hiding this comment. we don't need any other conditions because you have a There was a problem hiding this comment. |
||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
maybe this is a future improvement in crossplane but it would be nice if we could have this be easier to implement without having to hard code path 🤔
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.
I'm surprised that it's necessary to set this explicitly, and that the SDK doesn't "Just Work" when instantiated in a pod that's assigned a PodIdentity. Maybe what we really need is to add an explicit
PodIdentityto the list of supported auth types?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.
today we need to set it explicit - because our GO SDK is not up2date with this feature
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.
Is there an issue to track that?
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.
Quick question, if not a clarification:
IRSAv1 had a huge pain point in needing to include the roleARN that you're going to annotate service accounts with, so that the OIDC trust loop worked.
With IRSAv2 (Pod Identity Controller) I can configure all the AWS IAM/EKS components out of cluster, and as long as a pod starts up in the nominated namespace, and with the service account I picked, it should inherit the permissions at start via the injected token provided by the pod access controller.
Given this; if I have to mangle my helm to be coupled to the IAM ARN, I'm not sure I'm saving any hassle here - I want to just add a pod identity out of band (outside EKS, not involving Crossplane, since the host cluster is managed with terraform) and have Crossplane start up and use the IAM permissions granted to it.
Am I misunderstanding things here?
It's a relatively new concept but I've had success with this decoupled model with External Secrets controller for example.
Additionally as pointed out by @mbbush if we need to configure this, rather than letting it fall through the SDK default authentication methods a lot of the benefit of "it just works". Namely that; the pod identity controller, the associated admission mutation webhook and the tokens just being in the expected on the filsystem... start to lose some value.