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
feat: add config to overwrite grpc certificate #1870
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me.
@@ -40,6 +40,11 @@ grpc_listen_addr: 127.0.0.1:50443 | |||
# are doing. | |||
grpc_allow_insecure: false | |||
|
|||
# Use separate a certificate for gRPC, this overwrites |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
# Use separate a certificate for gRPC, this overwrites | |
# Use separate a x509 certificate for gRPC, this overwrites |
Overwrite sounds incorrect, it's more like using separate certs for grpc. What is the use case for this, why would you want it? It will also need some sort of integration tests. |
I used "overwrite" since that would imply that, by default, it would use certificates defined in the other settings, I'm happy to change this wording. My use case is described in the attached issue; I don't want to configure TLS for the HTTP API endpoints, but configure it for the gRPC endpoints. I'll add integration tests if you still consider this an acceptable change. |
OK, I am not super stoked about this as we mainly encourage less knobs to configure this kind of stuff as users seem to find them, try to use them and generate support load. I appreciate that it is useful for power users whom understand how to use them, we have no good mechanism for preventing everyone else from doing it. I can particular imagine that a lot of people using varieties of proxies will run into things here.
I do not know exactly how I want them to look or how to test something like this, so this might be a challenging exercise in it self, but if you want to take a stab at it, you are welcome to do so. |
grpc_tls_cert_path: "" | ||
grpc_tls_key_path: "" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
At this point, with the growing amount of options it should end up like:
grpc_tls_cert_path: "" | |
grpc_tls_key_path: "" | |
grpc: | |
allow_insecure: false | |
tls: | |
cert_path: "" | |
tls_key_path: "" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
agreed, though this would create breaking changes, which @ohdearaugustin asked to avoid
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It should be possible to map the allow insecure to the new value.
Not sure either, but this could probably involve working on a better test suite for the TLS implementation, since from what I understand, ACME is completely untested. Alternatively, integration tests could generate and trust a certificate for gRPC like they do for the HTTP API, then just check the fingerprint(?). Outside of CLI tests, are there tests for gRPC at all? |
This adds two config options to overwrite the TLS certificate for the gRPC API
(closes #1709)