Skip to content
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.

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

Recommend volume mounting with readOnly flag set to true #99

Closed
baijum opened this issue Sep 14, 2020 · 5 comments
Closed

Recommend volume mounting with readOnly flag set to true #99

baijum opened this issue Sep 14, 2020 · 5 comments

Comments

@baijum
Copy link
Contributor

baijum commented Sep 14, 2020

Under Reconciler Implementation section, the spec should recommend volume mounting with readOnly flag set to true.

The configuration will look like this:

...
    volumeMounts:
    - name: foo
      mountPath: "/etc/foo"
      readOnly: true
@baijum
Copy link
Contributor Author

baijum commented Sep 14, 2020

Looks like the secret is always mounted as read-only irrespective of readOnly flag value.

Refer:

But I think, a recommendation to set readOnly would be good to make it explicit.

@scothis
Copy link
Member

scothis commented Sep 14, 2020

This is something an implementation is free to do, but I don't believe it belongs in the spec as it doesn't define user facing behavior or aid portability.

@baijum
Copy link
Contributor Author

baijum commented Sep 15, 2020

This is something an implementation is free to do, but I don't believe it belongs in the spec as it doesn't define user facing behavior or aid portability.

Probably there should be another document, say "Recommendations for Implementations", to help implementors with these kinds of practical suggestions.

@nebhale
Copy link
Member

nebhale commented Sep 15, 2020

@baijum I've opened #100 and added this as the first thing we should cover. If you're satisfied with that issue, we can close this one out. Feel free to flesh out #100 a bit more if you'd like to note more of the content of this issue.

@baijum
Copy link
Contributor Author

baijum commented Sep 15, 2020

@baijum I've opened #100 and added this as the first thing we should cover. If you're satisfied with that issue, we can close this one out. Feel free to flesh out #100 a bit more if you'd like to note more of the content of this issue.

That must be issue #101

Thanks! I am closing this issue.

@baijum baijum closed this as completed Sep 15, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants