Uploaded image for project: 'OpenShift Storage'
  1. OpenShift Storage
  2. STOR-2126

readOnlyRootFilesystem should be explicitly to true and if required to false for security reason

XMLWordPrintable

    • Icon: Epic Epic
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Icon: Major Major
    • None
    • None
    • readOnlyRootFilesystem should be explicitly to true and if required to false for security reason
    • 1
    • False
    • None
    • False
    • Not Selected
    • To Do

      Epic Goal*

      What is our purpose in implementing this?  What new capability will be available to customers?

      According to security best practice, it's recommended to set readOnlyRootFilesystem: true for all containers running on kubernetes. Given that openshift-cluster-storage does not set that explicitly, it's requested that this is being evaluated and if possible set to readOnlyRootFilesystem: true or otherwise to readOnlyRootFilesystem: false with a potential explanation why the file-system needs to be write-able.

      Applies to openshift-cluster-storage, we should also check other storage operator for the same

       
      Why is this important? (mandatory)

      What are the benefits to the customer or Red Hat?   Does it improve security, performance, supportability, etc?  Why is work a priority?

       

      Extensive security audits are run on OpenShift Container Platform 4 and are highlighting that many vendor specific container is missing to set readOnlyRootFilesystem: true or else justify why readOnlyRootFilesystem: false is set.

       
      Scenarios (mandatory) 

      Provide details for user scenarios including actions to be performed, platform specifications, and user personas.  

      1. As an OCP admin I want to ensure that best practice are applied unless there is a valid reason not to do so

       
      Dependencies (internal and external) (mandatory)

      What items must be delivered by other teams/groups to enable delivery of this epic. 

      Contributing Teams(and contacts) (mandatory) 

      Our expectation is that teams would modify the list below to fit the epic. Some epics may not need all the default groups but what is included here should accurately reflect who will be involved in delivering the epic.

      • Development - STOR
      • Documentation -
      • QE - 
      • PX - 
      • Others -

      Acceptance Criteria (optional)

      Provide some (testable) examples of how we will know if we have achieved the epic goal.  

      Drawbacks or Risk (optional)

      Reasons we should consider NOT doing this such as: limited audience for the feature, feature will be superseded by other work that is planned, resulting feature will introduce substantial administrative complexity or user confusion, etc.

       

      Need to be careful readOnlyRootFilesystem: true doesn't break anything

       

      Done - Checklist (mandatory)

      The following points apply to all epics and are what the OpenShift team believes are the minimum set of criteria that epics should meet for us to consider them potentially shippable. We request that epic owners modify this list to reflect the work to be completed in order to produce something that is potentially shippable.

      • CI Testing -  Basic e2e automationTests are merged and completing successfully
      • Documentation - Content development is complete.
      • QE - Test scenarios are written and executed successfully.
      • Technical Enablement - Slides are complete (if requested by PLM)
      • Engineering Stories Merged
      • All associated work items with the Epic are closed
      • Epic status should be “Release Pending” 

              Unassigned Unassigned
              rh-gs-gcharot Gregory Charot
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              1 Start watching this issue

                Created:
                Updated: