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

feat: enable istio sidecar for kubeflow namespace #80

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 14, 2020

Conversation

Bobgy
Copy link
Contributor

@Bobgy Bobgy commented Jul 13, 2020

This PR uses kubeflow/manifest's namespaces package instead.

https://github.com/kubeflow/manifests/blob/master/namespaces/base/namespaces.yaml

Therefore, istio sidecar auto injection is turned on.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested review from jlewi and rmgogogo July 13, 2020 09:50
@kubeflow-bot
Copy link

This change is Reviewable

@Bobgy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Bobgy commented Jul 13, 2020

/assign @jlewi

@jlewi
Copy link
Contributor

jlewi commented Jul 13, 2020

@Bobgy Are you planning on turning this on for 1.1? This seems like a pretty big change which is landing pretty late in the 1.1 release cycle. I'm ok with enabling it on master but on 1.1 seems very risky.

@Bobgy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Bobgy commented Jul 13, 2020

@jlewi I understand your concern. Sorry, I should have brought it up earlier, but I'll list a few reasons why I think we should better have it.

  • This change has been on kubeflow/manifest master for a while at least for GCP kfdef, it passed e2e tests.
  • I have added istio sidecar disable annotation to every deployment, statefulset, it should be a no-op for other services.
  • As we discussed before, user dynamic workloads should go into user namespaces. If we stick to the rule, they won't get affected.
  • KFP multi user mode needs this security. Without istio mTLS + authorization rules, any workload in cluster can send a message to KFP api server and fake a user by making up the header.

I have tested this setup in my own cluster, I am not observing any behavior changes. Can we give it a try and if something doesn't work, roll back?

@jlewi
Copy link
Contributor

jlewi commented Jul 14, 2020

I was confused I thought this was in kubeflow/manifests but its kubeflow/gcp-blueprints.

Are the kubeflow/manifests changes already on the 1.1 branch of kubeflow/manifests?

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jlewi

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 94400d9 into GoogleCloudPlatform:master Jul 14, 2020
@Bobgy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Bobgy commented Jul 14, 2020

@jlewi Yes, it's there: https://github.com/kubeflow/manifests/blob/v1.1-branch/namespaces/base/namespaces.yaml.
But I think only GCP kfdef was enabling it.

@Bobgy Bobgy deleted the enable_istio_sidecar branch July 14, 2020 01:49
Bobgy added a commit to Bobgy/gcp-blueprints that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants