Skip to content

Conversation

yangminzhu
Copy link
Contributor

For istio/istio#12394

Please provide a description for what this PR is for.

And to help us figure out who should review this PR, please
put an X in all the areas that this PR affects.

[ ] Configuration Infrastructure
[ ] Docs
[ ] Installation
[ ] Networking
[ ] Performance and Scalability
[ ] Policies and Telemetry
[X] Security
[ ] Test and Release
[ ] User Experience
[ ] Developer Infrastructure

@istio-testing istio-testing added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Block merging of a PR because it isn't ready yet. label Oct 16, 2019
@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes Set by the Google CLA bot to indicate the author of a PR has signed the Google CLA. label Oct 16, 2019
@istio-testing istio-testing added the size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. label Oct 16, 2019
@yangminzhu yangminzhu marked this pull request as ready for review October 16, 2019 01:03
@yangminzhu yangminzhu requested a review from a team as a code owner October 16, 2019 01:03
@istio-testing istio-testing removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Block merging of a PR because it isn't ready yet. label Oct 16, 2019
@yangminzhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

/cc @liminw

@yangminzhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test lint_istio.io

@yangminzhu yangminzhu added this to the 1.4 milestone Oct 16, 2019
@yangminzhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rcaballeromx Could you review the PR? it's needed for the 1.4 release. thanks.

updated authorization policies if it sees any changes. Pilot distributes Istio
authorization policies to the Envoy proxies that are co-located with the
service instances.
Galley watches for changes to Istio authorization policies. It fetches the
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should remove this paragraph, or move it to the architecture document. In general, we want to be talking about the features and not how the features are implemented.

@rcaballeromx

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@geeknoid I agree. This information doesn't belong here and we should move it to, at the very least an architecture section, or ideally the Architecture page under reference.

@yangminzhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rcaballeromx ping

@liminw
Copy link
Contributor

liminw commented Oct 24, 2019

One more thing, I think we also need to mention that the policy can be applied to Ingress and Egress, and give an example about it. This is a new feature that should be highlighted. Ideally, we should have a task demonstrating ingress/egress authorization.

@yangminzhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

@liminw updated the doc for your comments, for the ingress/egress part, how about let me do it in a follow-up PR together with adding the new task for it? It's already quite a lot changes here.

@yangminzhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

@liminw Done, I think we had a bug for the support of "*" for presence match. Currently I'm afraid it matches on any instead of non-empty, will verify and fix soon.

@liminw
Copy link
Contributor

liminw commented Oct 25, 2019

@liminw Done, I think we had a bug for the support of "*" for presence match. Currently I'm afraid it matches on any instead of non-empty, will verify and fix soon.

Thanks @yangminzhu Yes. we need to fix it.

@liminw
Copy link
Contributor

liminw commented Oct 25, 2019

@yangminzhu Let's also clearly document "implicit enablement" behavior. See design doc. It is a big behavior change from alpha policy.

@yangminzhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

@yangminzhu Let's also clearly document "implicit enablement" behavior. See design doc. It is a big behavior change from alpha policy.

I updated to the Enabling authorization section for the description of implicit enablement.

@yangminzhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nrjpoddar @zjory Thank you very much for helping to review the PR. I have updated the PR for your comments, hope we can get it in before the 1.4 release :)

yangminzhu and others added 15 commits November 8, 2019 17:31
Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
…x.md

Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
…x.md

Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
…x.md

Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
…-properties/index.md

Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Martin Taillefer <geeknoid@users.noreply.github.com>
@yangminzhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

@geeknoid Updated for the comments, PTAL, thanks!

@istio-testing istio-testing merged commit 9a57887 into istio:master Nov 9, 2019
@yangminzhu yangminzhu deleted the authz branch November 11, 2019 18:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cla: yes Set by the Google CLA bot to indicate the author of a PR has signed the Google CLA. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants