-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 875
feat(coderd): add filters and fix template for provisioner daemons #16558
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
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.
Review: I completed this because it was missing some things. But I wonder if we need to take RBAC into consideration now?
The endpoint previously returned a job ID/status only, now it also returns information regarding the template that job is associated with.
This has some implications considering regular members are allowed to view provisioner daemon resources. WDYT @johnstcn?
I'm not particularly fond of it, but we could add the same authorization to the API endpoint as for jobs:
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.
I don't know how sensitive
template
ortemplate_version
fields can be, but a red flag for me would be if this could cross org boundaries.I think some further questions we need to answer before we can even update the RBAC rules are:
To be safe, I think we should promote the same level of access control as for provisioner jobs for now. We should add a follow-up issue to take provisioner job ownership and template-level ACLs into account.
Does that sound reasonable to you?