mirror of
https://github.com/cozystack/cozystack.git
synced 2026-11-09 22:13:18 +09:00
Aleksei Sviridkin
72ff22dc9e
<!-- Thank you for making a contribution! Here are some tips for you: - Use Conventional Commits for the PR title: `type(scope): description` - Types: feat, fix, docs, style, refactor, perf, test, build, ci, chore - Scopes are not an exhaustive list — pick the most specific scope for the change and extend the list when a genuinely new area appears. Examples: - System components: dashboard, platform, operator, cilium, kube-ovn, linstor, fluxcd, cluster-api - Managed apps: postgres, mariadb, redis, kafka, clickhouse, virtual-machine, kubernetes - Development and maintenance: api, hack, tests, ci, docs, maintenance - Breaking changes: append `!` after type/scope (`feat(api)!: ...`) or add a `BREAKING CHANGE:` footer - If it's a work in progress, consider creating this PR as a draft. - Don't hesistate to ask for opinion and review in the community chats, even if it's still a draft. - Add the label `kind/backport` if it's a bugfix that needs to be backported to a previous version. --> ## What this PR does Fixes #5129. A SecurityGroup with `attachments` and no rules still projects to a backing CiliumNetworkPolicy, since that policy carries the attachments the securitygroup-controller reconciles. Its spec was `endpointSelector` plus `ingress: []`. The CRD `anyOf` accepts that, but the agent's `api.Rule.Sanitize` counts entries (`len(r.Ingress) == 0 && ...`, the same in v1.19.5 and v1.20.2), so Cilium marks the policy `Valid=False` with "rule must have at least one of Ingress, IngressDeny, Egress, EgressDeny". `pkg/apis/sdn/DESIGN.md` §5 claimed the opposite. The projection now writes one empty ingress rule, which allows nothing, plus `enableDefaultDeny: {ingress: false, egress: false}`, so that rule does not put the member pods into default deny. The override relies on the agent's `enable-non-default-deny-policies`, which defaults to `true` in the vendored chart; DESIGN.md says so. `ingress` is now `omitempty` like `egress`, because an empty list no longer serves any purpose. The reverse projection hides that exact spec, so the group still reads back with no rules. `enableDefaultDeny` is what tells it apart from a tenant-authored empty ingress rule, which keeps its default deny and stays visible. `TestRulesLessSecurityGroupProjectsValidPolicy` now checks the wire form against the Sanitize rule and fails on `main` (`ingress:[]`). `TestEmptyIngressRuleIsNotMembershipOnly` covers the tenant-authored empty rule. `go test ./pkg/registry/sdn/...` passes. Checked on a lab running Cozystack v1.6.5 with Cilium 1.19.5 (`enable-non-default-deny-policies: true`), in a throw-away namespace with no baseline policy. A membership-only group `front` attached to `web`, and a group `db` on `srv` allowing `fromSG: [front]` on 8080. The v1.6.5 projection gives `front` as `VALID=False`. With the spec this branch writes for `front` applied to its CNP, it turns `VALID=True` ("Policy validation succeeded"), and every probe is unchanged: `web -> srv:8080` OK, `web -> srv:9090` and `other -> srv:8080` refused, `other -> web:8080` and `web -> other:8080` OK, so the placeholder isolates nothing. Moving the attachment of `front` from `web` to `other` flips the `fromSG` peer: `other -> srv:8080` OK, `web -> srv:8080` refused. ### Screenshots <!-- REQUIRED for UI changes: attach screenshots or screen recordings demonstrating the visual impact of your changes. PRs with UI changes without screenshots will not be merged. --> ### Downstream repositories The diff touches `pkg/registry/sdn/securitygroup/` and `pkg/apis/sdn/DESIGN.md` only: no package, chart, CRD, `hack/` or convention change. The website mentions SecurityGroups only in the v1.6 blog post and the PCI-DSS page, neither of which describes the backing policy. <!-- Cozystack is upstream for repositories that are NOT kept in sync with it automatically, and nothing in CI compares the two sides, so a change here can break them silently. Which change forces what, and which file to touch, is the trigger map in docs/agents/contributing.md under "Downstream Repositories". Walk it before you tick anything. IF YOU ARE AN AI AGENT OR AN LLM, THIS IS PART OF THE TASK, NOT A FORM TO FILL IN: 1. Walk the trigger map against the actual diff of this PR, file by file. Do not decide from the PR title or from your memory of what you changed. 2. For every repository you tick, open the follow-up PR there and link it on the same line. A ticked box with no link claims work that does not exist, which is worse than an empty box. Search that repository for an open PR or issue covering it first, and link that instead of filing a duplicate. 3. When the follow-up is out of scope, or needs a decision that is not yours to make, open an issue in that repository instead, link that, and say so in the PR body. Do not push a speculative PR into another repository just to fill a line here. 4. Do not tick "No downstream repository is affected" to make the checklist go away. If you are unsure, leave every box empty and say so in the PR body, so a human decides. --> - [x] No downstream repository is affected by this change - [ ] [cozystack/website](https://github.com/cozystack/website) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/terraform-provider-cozystack](https://github.com/cozystack/terraform-provider-cozystack) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/ansible-cozystack](https://github.com/cozystack/ansible-cozystack) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/ccp](https://github.com/cozystack/ccp) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/talm](https://github.com/cozystack/talm) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/cozyhr](https://github.com/cozystack/cozyhr) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/cozy-proxy](https://github.com/cozystack/cozy-proxy) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/cozystack-telemetry-server](https://github.com/cozystack/cozystack-telemetry-server) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/external-apps-example](https://github.com/cozystack/external-apps-example) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/examples](https://github.com/cozystack/examples) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/community](https://github.com/cozystack/community) - follow-up: ### Release note <!-- Write a release note: - Explain what has changed internally and for users. - Start with the same `type(scope):` prefix as in the PR title - Follow the guidelines at https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/guide/release-notes.md. --> ```release-note fix(securitygroups): a SecurityGroup with attachments and no rules no longer leaves an invalid CiliumNetworkPolicy behind; its backing policy is now accepted by Cilium and still allows or denies nothing. ``` <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> <!-- coderabbit-ai-generated:v1 --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit * **Bug Fixes** * Membership-only SecurityGroups now round-trip without displaying ingress or egress rules, while remaining usable without triggering default-deny behavior. * SecurityGroups with an explicitly configured empty ingress rule continue to retain that rule when read back. * This behavior depends on Cilium’s `enable-non-default-deny-policies` option being enabled; when disabled, Cilium applies default deny to every policy. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->