Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

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

Use existing ETCD and Kubernetes CA certificates #397

Closed
log1cb0mb opened this issue Dec 26, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

Use existing ETCD and Kubernetes CA certificates #397

log1cb0mb opened this issue Dec 26, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@log1cb0mb
Copy link

Ability to allow users to provide an existing CA certificate for both ETCD and Kubernetes in the form of a secret containing content however Kamaji expects it to be.

Current behaviour seems to be that ETCD CA is pretty much hard coded and is utilised during etcd datastore bootstrap.

TCP does allow reusing existing secret (named exactly what TCP specs expect) containing CA certificate but due to Kamaji controller not maintaining checksums for the secret containing CA certificate, reconciliation keeps triggering deletion of existing secret. In case the secret is not available by the time Kamaji controller gets to the phase of using it, it generates its own CA certificate.

This would be a helpful feature:

  • Organisations that tend to streamline central PKI usage in their infrastructures
  • Allow creating certificate based credentials in advance to kubernetes control plane bootstrap e.g terraform workflow where valid credentials for Kubernetes API must be known before the bootstrap.
@prometherion prometherion self-assigned this Jan 2, 2024
@prometherion
Copy link
Member

I spent the whole holiday trying to find a solution to this. However, it would be cool and helpful to have a proper user story, along with the tools and some examples used to achieve the offloading of the certificates to a third party.

What we could introduce from Kamaji's standpoint is a knob, potentially an annotation on the TenantControlPlane resource.

@log1cb0mb it would be cool if you could provide further details about it, such as skipping all the certificates checksum checks, or making it fine-grained: again, it's a use-case particular, we're open to getting this implemented, we need to gather more details and a user-story would be really helpful.

@clastix clastix locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 18, 2024
@prometherion prometherion converted this issue into discussion #463 May 18, 2024

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants