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

docs: Add example for using GCP Workload Identity #2000

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

chasen-bettinger
Copy link

As mentioned in the README there are issues with
passing encrypted secrets into reusable workflows.
There aren't valid workarounds at the moment, so
I believe users are forced to use generic environment
variables.

This closes #1732.

@chasen-bettinger
Copy link
Author

@ianlewis Would love your feedback!

internal/builders/container/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
internal/builders/container/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
internal/builders/container/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
internal/builders/container/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

```

NOTE: There are existing challenges with using secrets in reusable workflows. Due to these problems, you will likely need to use unencrypted environment variables. To learn more: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/17554 and https://colinsalmcorner.com/consuming-environment-secrets-in-reusable-workflows/.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but IIUC, Since the user isn't writing a reusable workflow, but rather calling one, this shouldn't really be an issue. Are you referring to something specific here?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It was my attempt at articulating that the caller cannot pass values within the secrets. object into reusable workflows. They'll have to use whatever is stored in vars..

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure this is specific to our reusable workflows or to workload identity so maybe we can just leave this out as I think it might confuse the reader.

Or maybe you can be more specific? Like saying something like "WORKLOAD_IDENTITY_PROVIDER and SERVICE_ACCOUNT should be stored in vars rather than secrets as you cannot pass secrets to reusable workflow inputs".

wdut?

@ianlewis
Copy link
Member

BTW thanks for writing this up! Overall it looks great!

@chasen-bettinger
Copy link
Author

@ianlewis Ready for re-review. Thanks for feedback 😄

# EXAMPLE:
# northamerica-northeast1-docker.pkg.dev/blank-check-231234/your-repository
REPOSITORY_PATH: ${{ vars.REPOSITORY_PATH }}

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

please set the default pemissions, e.g.

permissions: read-all

or

permissions:
   contents: read

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't understand the what or why behind this comment. Could you expand please?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think that if this is meant to be a full example it should include a set of default permissions.
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#permissions

The defaults are usually permissive and we'd like to encourage folks to explicitly set them to be less permissive.
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/security-guides/automatic-token-authentication#permissions-for-the-github_token

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.

[docs][container] Document using GCP workload identity
3 participants