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

Add vault-autounseal interface #141

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

DanielArndt
Copy link
Member

@DanielArndt DanielArndt commented Feb 14, 2024

Creation of a new interface, vault-autounseal, for making use of the Vault transit engine to autounseal another vault.

@DanielArndt DanielArndt force-pushed the vault-transit-interface branch 3 times, most recently from d49a9a8 to ee40998 Compare May 2, 2024 17:43
@DanielArndt DanielArndt marked this pull request as ready for review May 2, 2024 17:43
@DanielArndt DanielArndt changed the title Vault transit interface Add vault-autounseal interface May 6, 2024

## Limitations

In this iteration, many data points (mount path, key name) are implied, and not configurable. This is likely to change in future versions.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I understand why they may not be configurable but should the mount path not be written in the relation data so that the requirer knows it.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, I agree. It wasn't in the spec so I left that as a future improvement. But, if there's no discussion needed (i.e. you agree 😆 ) then it's easy to make that change here and in the implementation code.

That would remove some FIXME comments from the implementation too, which would be nice.

jWpoal3C6/rrAL1auX0vhoOXZ3J3nYoypSYL1SgiKn8hHGLAq/FulOWTxHok7CLy
4ZT7j4CUoxXdfuAZxQ+cnCyPkpL96y9XsDiescRInOkVAmw=
-----END CERTIFICATE-----
credentials_secret_id: secret://575cd150-f7c2-4710-88a3-3f33e14e867c/copsdgnmp25c77tkgke0
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should probably explicitly state the various keys expected to be in this secret

"description": "The address of the Vault server to connect to.",
"type": "string"
},
"token_secret_id": {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here we call it token_secret_id but in the example in the readme we call it credentials_secret_id

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This file was leftover from before the re-spec. It was a generated file so I didn't even notice it. Will remove.

Thanks for catching this.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why do we have both docs/json_schemas/vault_autounseal/v0/provider.json and docs/json_schemas/vault_transit/v0/provider.json files?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

oops, artifact of renaming the relation. Will remove. Good catch.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants