Add project and silo ids to VM attestation#1114
Draft
augustuswm wants to merge 2 commits intomasterfrom
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This relies on vm-attest#68 to add support for including the project and silo ids in the VM instance configuration data provided by attestations. These PRs are meant as discussion points, and not intended to be merged yet. This change allows upstream callers to make richer policy decisions as project and silo ids are likely to be much more stable than VM ids. For instance if we are rolling deployments we may bring up multiple VMs and move IPs between them to roll a release forwards or backwards. It would be a lot of coordination to propagate that value to all of the policy deciders during a deploy when what we would really want is to specify a policy for all VMs in a project (or possibly with a tag in a future world).
There is not much interesting going on outside of piping the ids through. That said, it makes the API for
prepare_instance_confpretty nasty as we are passing three opaque Uuids that rely on their order to be correct. Happy to change this to something like a builder or some other pattern to avoid errors.The primary focus of this PR though is to discuss if this the correct path to passing the data to the attestation. Notably we do not provide any access to sled metadata so as to split this conversion from concerns about exposing placement data.