search

operator-framework / enhancements

Apache License 2.0
9 stars 40 forks source link

Service Binding for operator-backed services #12

Open sbose78 opened 4 years ago

sbose78 commented 4 years ago
sbose78 commented 4 years ago

@dmesser @ecordell I've made some progress with the proposal with 20% remaining, do you mind taking a look and helping me with early feedback if the format and content of the proposal makes sense? Let me know if there's something explicitly I should be adding.

CC @siamaksade

dmesser commented 4 years ago

@sbose78 Thank you. Can you add some information about the following:

sbose78 commented 4 years ago

Thank you. I am working to define a specification as well ( early stage, needs work ) along with a plan for the first wave of adopters . I'll update this with the new information!

sbose78 commented 4 years ago

We made agreements on what the specification could look like https://github.com/application-stacks/service-binding-specification and stabilized it for the time being.

Based on the conversations, I will be updating the proposal and taking it to completion.

sbose78 commented 4 years ago

Removed WIP, there are a few additions I'll make along the way, however it is ready for a detailed review now.

sbose78 commented 4 years ago

How do avoid that a user that normally doesn't have the privileges to read bindable fields can misuse the Service Binding Operator to get those injected into a resource they have access to?

I'll add the section, thank you @dmesser !

We'll be doing Subject Access Review checks using a validating webhook - it isn't supported yet, but we have an epic on our backlog https://issues.redhat.com/browse/APPSVC-546

If there's anything that needs to be prioritized to ensure the transition is smooth, we shall prioritize.

shawn-hurley commented 4 years ago

Do we want this apart of the default OLM install for upstream install of OLM?

sbose78 commented 4 years ago

Do we want this apart of the default OLM install for upstream install of OLM?

@dmesser @siamaksade I'll need you to weigh in on this.

baijum commented 3 years ago

Thank you. I am working to define a specification as well ( early stage, needs work ) along with a plan for the first wave of adopters . I'll update this with the new information!

The specification @sbose78 mentioned has moved here: https://github.com/k8s-service-bindings/spec Also, Red Hat's Service Binding Operator is no more conforming to the spec. Current the only spec-compliant implementation is from VMWare: https://github.com/vmware-labs/service-bindings I have a side project which is aiming for core-spec compliance with few extensions: https://github.com/kubepreset/kubepreset (demo)

baijum commented 3 years ago

I have a side project which is aiming for core-spec compliance with few extensions: https://github.com/kubepreset/kubepreset (demo)

Update: I stopped working on my side-project for now.

The spec is now part of a Kubernetes SIG: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/service-catalog/issues/2857

bparees commented 3 years ago

@sbose78 i am struggling to understand what this is proposing, vs what exists already in SBO + OLM.

It talks about several different apis/annotations for specifying bindings, some generic and some specific to operators. Can you rework this to make it clearer which part is "background info" about how things work today, and which parts are the actual proposed enhancements?

It would also help if it was clearer whether this is proposing changes just in OLM, changes just in SBO, or both.

sbose78 commented 3 years ago

Yes, this enhancement proposal needs some maintenance since this was a while ago. I'm on it!

sbose78 commented 3 years ago

@bparees I've updated the proposal to reflect the current state of SBO accurately.