Open timstclair opened 8 years ago
Original issue here: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/22159
@timstclair it looks like the docs PR number is outdated. Please update the PR number and check the docs box once it's done
Fixed. Thanks @janetkuo !
Docs https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io/pull/1147 - @kubernetes/docs
Is there an issue? I merged this one in last week.
On Sep 21, 2016 1:30 PM, "Tim St. Clair" notifications@github.com wrote:
Docs kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io#1147 https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io/pull/1147 - @kubernetes/docs https://github.com/orgs/kubernetes/teams/docs
— You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/kubernetes/features/issues/24#issuecomment-248733477, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARmNwOTArylXQHoAoz2lMTsKhg9luaTYks5qsZPlgaJpZM4JMBOR .
No, I was just following the instructions at the bottom of the issue, which I hadn't done before...
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Prevent issues from auto-closing with an /lifecycle frozen
comment.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close
.
Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or @fejta
.
/lifecycle stale
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close
.
Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. /lifecycle rotten /remove-lifecycle stale
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.
Reopen the issue with /reopen
.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
.
Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. /close
/remove-lifecycle rotten
@tallclair @liggitt Any plans for this in 1.11?
If so, can you please ensure the feature is up-to-date with the appropriate:
stage/{alpha,beta,stable}
sig/*
kind/feature
cc @idvoretskyi
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close
.
Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. /lifecycle stale
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close
.
Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. /lifecycle rotten
@tallclair @kubernetes/sig-node-feature-requests @kubernetes/sig-auth-feature-requests -- are there plans for AppArmor support?
/kind feature /sig auth /unassign @timstclair /assign @tallclair
No plans right now.
Hi This enhancement has been tracked before, so we'd like to check in and see if there are any plans for this to graduate stages in Kubernetes 1.13. This release is targeted to be more ‘stable’ and will have an aggressive timeline. Please only include this enhancement if there is a high level of confidence it will meet the following deadlines:
Please take a moment to update the milestones on your original post for future tracking and ping @kacole2 if it needs to be included in the 1.13 Enhancements Tracking Sheet
Thanks!
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close
.
Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. /lifecycle stale
Enhancement issues opened in kubernetes/enhancements
should never be marked as frozen.
Enhancement Owners can ensure that enhancements stay fresh by consistently updating their states across release cycles.
/remove-lifecycle frozen
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close
.
Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. /lifecycle rotten
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.
Reopen the issue with /reopen
.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
.
Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. /close
@fejta-bot: Closing this issue.
/remove-lifecycle rotten
It might be useful to mark this feature as rotten, as it's been stuck in beta for too long, but IMO enhancements that have been merged into kubernetes should not be closed unless they are completed (GA) or deprecated & removed.
@tallclair anything happening here for 1.16? Any plans for deprecation?
I have the beginnings of a plan to bring it to GA, but it might be a stretch to get to it in 1.16. I'll try to get a proposal out by enhancements freeze though.
@tallclair Do you think think theres going to be any activity for this in the 1.17 release?
I was hoping to get this to GA alongside seccomp in v1.17, but I'm probably only going to have time to do 1 (seccomp). If anyone else is interested in picking this up, I'd be happy to provide some pointers. Otherwise, I expect GA to happen in v1.18
Noted. Will keep tabs on the thread in case anyone picks it up. Thanks for the update!
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close
.
Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. /lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
Hey 👋, is there anything we can do to move this one forward. I’d be happy to contribute to finish this one up.
Hey @tallclair, looks like the seccomp (https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/135) issue didn't make 1.17, will you be trying to get this one for 1.18 in parallel to that one? Maybe @saschagrunert can pitch in and help you out with that? It doesn't look like there is a KEP associated with this, although I might have missed it if there is one. To get this into the 1.18 release, we'd need to have a KEP written that included the graduation to GA criteria and the test plan.
Thanks for the offer @saschagrunert I'd welcome your help on this! The first thing to do is to write a KEP. If you're interested, take a look at the Seccomp to GA KEP. Most of that should translate directly to AppArmor, with a couple small differences:
I'd be happy to answer questions and help review the KEP, but I won't have time to work on it directly this release cycle.
Thanks for the offer @saschagrunert I'd welcome your help on this! The first thing to do is to write a KEP. If you're interested, take a look at the [Seccomp to GA KEP]
Alright, I took the seccomp KEP and converted it to AppArmor with taking the differences into consideration (#1444) and addressing some of the latest review notes. I took my freedom to add you as co-author if you don't mind.
Hey @saschagrunert ( and @tallclair), assuming the KEP gets approved prior to enhancements freeze, do you think that this is something you'll accomplish during the 1.18 timeframe? Code Freeze for 1.18 will be March 5th. If you think it is, I'll go ahead and mark it as tracked for the release and get it into the milestone.
Let me know!
Thanks so much for picking this up @saschagrunert
Hey @saschagrunert ( and @tallclair), assuming the KEP gets approved prior to enhancements freeze, do you think that this is something you'll accomplish during the 1.18 timeframe? Code Freeze for 1.18 will be March 5th. If you think it is, I'll go ahead and mark it as tracked for the release and get it into the milestone.
Let me know!
Thanks so much for picking this up @saschagrunert
Hey @jeremyrickard, let's wait for the review of the KEP. :) From my point of view I would have time for the implementation, but I'm not sure if we can get the KEP review done until enhancement freeze (Jan 28).
Hey @saschagrunert, it looks like there hasn't been much traffic on the KEP. I wanted to check back in since we're about a week away from enhancement freeze. I'm guessing there won't be a big push before then, but please let us know!
Hey, let’s skip this KEP for 1.18. :) we can easily target it for 1.19
Awesome, thanks for the update @saschagrunert.
Thanks @saschagrunert . I want to get the open questions on the Seccomp KEP sorted out before reviewing the AppArmor one, otherwise we may just end up duplicating work.
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close
.
Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. /lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
Hey there @tallclair -- 1.19 Enhancements shadow here. I wanted to check in and see if you think this Enhancement will be graduating in 1.19?
In order to have this part of the release:
The current release schedule is:
If you do, I'll add it to the 1.19 tracking sheet (http://bit.ly/k8s-1-19-enhancements). Once coding begins please list all relevant k/k PRs in this issue so they can be tracked properly. 👍
Thanks!
Hi there @tallclair ,
Kind reminder about my question above.
Regards, Mirek
/assign @saschagrunert
Are you planning to get AppArmor to GA this releases cycle?
This KEP will not be part of 1.19 because we don’t have enough resources in SIG architecture to provide the API reviews.
Thank you @saschagrunert for letting me know.
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close
.
Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. /lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
Will target to work on this in v1.20.0.
Description
Add AppArmor support to Kubernetes. Initial support should include the ability to specify an AppArmor profile for a container or pod in the API, and have that profile applied by the container runtime.
Progress Tracker
/pkg/apis/...
)Code needs to be disabled by default. Verified by code OWNERSAppArmor is enabled by default, but gated by a feature-gate: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/31473_FEATURESTATUS is used for feature tracking and to be updated by @kubernetes/feature-reviewers. FEATURE_STATUS: BETA
More advice:
Design
Coding
Docs