Closed prestonvanloon closed 4 years ago
i think the following would work (i ran a very quick check but if you can reconfirm, i'll update the repo):
---
apiVersion: networking.istio.io/v1alpha3
kind: EnvoyFilter
metadata:
name: ext-authz-filter
namespace: istio-system
spec:
workloadSelector:
labels:
app: istio-ingressgateway
configPatches:
- applyTo: HTTP_FILTER
match:
context: GATEWAY
listener:
filterChain:
filter:
name: "envoy.http_connection_manager"
subFilter:
name: "envoy.router"
patch:
operation: INSERT_BEFORE
value:
name: envoy.ext_authz
config:
grpc_service:
envoy_grpc:
cluster_name: patched.authz.authz-ns.svc.cluster.local
---
# https://github.com/istio/istio/issues/21841
apiVersion: networking.istio.io/v1alpha3
kind: EnvoyFilter
metadata:
name: ext-authz-filter-cluster-patch
namespace: istio-system
spec:
workloadLabels:
app: istio-ingressgateway
configPatches:
- applyTo: CLUSTER
match:
cluster:
service: authz.authz-ns.svc.cluster.local
patch:
operation: MERGE
value:
name: "patched.authz.authz-ns.svc.cluster.local"
seems to work; pls reopen if not
@salrashid123 workloadLabels doesn't seem to work in istio 1.6.x at least :).
When i did that the cluster patch seemed to apply to all sidecars as well, because the selector didn't match anything.
Updating it to
workloadSelector: labels: app: istio-ingressgateway
Or
workloadSelector: labels: istio: ingressgateway
Seems to fix the issue i saw.
Mostly a heads up if someone else drops by this repo.
First of all, thank you for maintaining such a detailed example for ext_authz in istio and thanks for leading me here.
I have been trying to understand and use an EnvoyFilter for ext_authz in Istio 1.3. However, the examples here are using deprecated fields which are undocumented and likely removed already in a recent version of Istio. (According to https://github.com/istio/api/pull/1344, these fields have been removed from Pilot already).
Would it be possible to update this example with the non-deprecated EnvoyFilter fields?
Context link: https://github.com/istio/istio/issues/21841#issuecomment-639887372