Skip to content

ci: switch most remaining workflows to new IPsec key system #35295

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 9, 2024
Merged

ci: switch most remaining workflows to new IPsec key system #35295

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 9, 2024

Conversation

julianwiedmann
Copy link
Member

@julianwiedmann julianwiedmann commented Oct 8, 2024 •
edited
Loading 

The global IPsec key system is deprecated [0], prefer the new per-tunnel
key system. This switches most workflows over to the new system, except
conformance-eks which needs [1] addressed first.

[0] https://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/33504
[1] https://github.com/cilium/cilium/issues/32040

@julianwiedmann julianwiedmann added area/CI Continuous Integration testing issue or flake area/encryption Impacts encryption support such as IPSec, WireGuard, or kTLS. release-note/ci This PR makes changes to the CI. feature/ipsec Relates to Cilium's IPsec feature labels Oct 8, 2024
@julianwiedmann
Copy link
Member Author

/test

@julianwiedmann
Copy link
Member Author

/ci-gke

@julianwiedmann
Copy link
Member Author

/ci-aks

@julianwiedmann
Copy link
Member Author

/ci-multi-pool

@julianwiedmann
Copy link
Member Author

Everyone's happy except EKS, and that's a known issue (#32040) that will be addressed in #34709.

@julianwiedmann
ci: switch most remaining workflows to new IPsec key system
7e38710 
The global IPsec key system is deprecated [0], prefer the new per-tunnel
key system. This switches most workflows over to the new system, except
conformance-eks which needs [1] addressed first.

[0] #33504
[1] #32040

Reported-by: Marcel Zięba <marcel.zieba@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@isovalent.com>
@julianwiedmann julianwiedmann force-pushed the pr/jwi/main/ipsec-secret branch from eeb33ab to 7e38710 Compare October 8, 2024 16:26
@julianwiedmann julianwiedmann changed the title ci: switch remaining workflows to new IPsec key system ci: switch most remaining workflows to new IPsec key system Oct 8, 2024
@julianwiedmann
Copy link
Member Author

/test

@julianwiedmann
Copy link
Member Author

/ci-gke

@julianwiedmann
Copy link
Member Author

/ci-aks

@julianwiedmann julianwiedmann requested a review from marseel October 8, 2024 17:23
@julianwiedmann julianwiedmann marked this pull request as ready for review October 8, 2024 17:23
@julianwiedmann julianwiedmann requested review from a team as code owners October 8, 2024 17:23
joestringer
joestringer approved these changes Oct 8, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@joestringer joestringer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can't speak for the ipsec configuration, but the github workflow usage LGTM.

@aanm aanm added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 9, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 512943a Oct 9, 2024
115 checks passed
@aanm aanm deleted the pr/jwi/main/ipsec-secret branch October 9, 2024 07:40
@julianwiedmann julianwiedmann mentioned this pull request Oct 10, 2024
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@joestringer joestringer joestringer approved these changes

@christarazi christarazi christarazi approved these changes

@aanm aanm aanm approved these changes

@marseel marseel Awaiting requested review from marseel

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
area/CI Continuous Integration testing issue or flake area/encryption Impacts encryption support such as IPSec, WireGuard, or kTLS. feature/ipsec Relates to Cilium's IPsec feature release-note/ci This PR makes changes to the CI.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@julianwiedmann @joestringer @christarazi @aanm