-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 459
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
Automatically create user-data secret for each MCP #319
Comments
Sounds good to me. |
SGTM as well but I don't think this prevents #368 from landing and the plan around managing this user data (as well as bootimages) from the MCO isn't fully hashed out either, see openshift/machine-config-operator#683 (comment) (that's yet another direction...). So, I think this would be valuable as well and we can work on something for the next release (#368 is specific for the v3 migration which is tricky per-se and we want to avoid to pull in other changes like this could be..) |
/cc @enxebre @cgwalters |
This is openshift/machine-config-operator#1619 right? |
I think we should do it but let's get #368 first, doesn't need to happen at the same time. |
this sounds reasonable to me as well |
Would we agree this is more like a bug/shortcoming we have in MCO? why do we need an enhancement? it sounds like a straightforward fix we can do in the MCO anyway (as we sync the original pools and we can add the userdata creation there as well) |
@runcom well, it's one of those things that touches multiple areas. The machine-api needs to have the user-data secret, MCO needs to create it. Whether or not this amounts to the level of an 'enhancement' IDK. I filed it in this repo because it's a cross-component issue. I didn't write a full enhancement because that seems unnecessary. |
@michaelgugino we've done this here https://github.com/openshift/machine-config-operator/pull/1792/files#diff-fa45321336db7ad1cedc28bf643a4f97R380-R404 - now any pool is getting its stub ignition config |
@runcom looks good. Anything cleaning these secrets up? I think it's probably okay to leave them there for the most part. |
nothing today but we can add something going forward - we don't have anything cleaning unused MCs yet so it should be safe as we're going to rerender the secrets as well in case something changes |
@runcom yeah, I think cleaning up MCs based on 'unused' is tricky. It might be a config I only use every so often for a particular type of workload, so it might be perfectly valid to have a MC that goes unused for an extended period of time. As far as deleting the user-data, I'm fine with it not being deleted automatically. I think we could potentially set an owner-ref (does that work cross namespace?) on the user-data pointing to the relevant MCP and cleanup will happen automatically (again, not required IMO). |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle stale |
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle rotten |
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue by commenting /close |
@openshift-bot: Closing this issue. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/reopen |
@michaelgugino: Reopened this issue. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue by commenting /close |
@openshift-bot: Closing this issue. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/reopen |
@michaelgugino: Reopened this issue. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue by commenting /close |
@openshift-bot: Closing this issue. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
Currently, the installer creates the initial user-data (stub ignition file) that is provided to machines on first boot to configure the host. This ignition stub contains a url that specifies the name of a MachineConfigPool. If a user creates a custom MachineConfigPool, the user must create a new stub ignition file manually, which is quite tedious.
We should automatically generate a new user-data secret for each MachineConfigPool created by the MCO. This would allow users to more easily consume custom MCPs via the machine-api by just specifying the corresponding user-data secret.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: