1.10.x: properly handle the case where the secondary initializes after the primary #11539
Conversation
This file contains 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
ca: properly handle the case where the secondary initializes after the primary
freddygv
added
the
pr/no-changelog
kyhavlov
approved these changes
Nov 9, 2021
markan
approved these changes
Nov 9, 2021
|
🍒 If backport labels were added before merging, cherry-picking will start automatically. To retroactively trigger a backport after merging, add backport labels and re-run https://circleci.com/gh/hashicorp/consul/498603. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Backport of #11514
Fixes #11367
Previously
secondaryInitializewould return nil in this case, which prevented thedeferred initialize from happening, and left the CA in an uninitialized state until a config
update or root rotation.
To fix this I extracted the common parts into the delegate implementation. However looking at this
again, it seems like the handling in secondaryUpdateRoots is impossible, because that function
should never be called before the secondary is initialzied. I beleive we can remove some of that
logic in a follow up.