Bug 1570936
Summary: | New infra projects (sdn, node, etc) should be immortal | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | OpenShift Container Platform | Reporter: | Mike Fiedler <mifiedle> |
Component: | Master | Assignee: | David Eads <deads> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Wang Haoran <haowang> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 3.10.0 | CC: | aos-bugs, deads, jokerman, mmccomas |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | 3.10.0 | ||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2018-04-30 12:11:25 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Mike Fiedler
2018-04-23 19:07:57 UTC
I don't see why components should be immortal. I wouldn't make the openshift-apiserver namespace immortal, so why should the SDN that depends on it be immortal? I may consider making some future operator namespace immortal to ease recovery (or maybe not), but preventing the removal of a component after it has been installed doesn't seem reasonable to me. Seems asymmetrical that we allow deletion of openshift-* namespaces but do not allow creation: root@ip-172-31-13-231: ~ # oc new-project openshift-logging Error from server (Forbidden): project.project.openshift.io "openshift-logging" is forbidden: cannot request a project starting with "openshift-" @deads is this as you would expect? Maybe I'm being too picky. We don't allow requesting a namespace with that pattern because normal users can request projects. Normal users cannot delete any openshift- namespaces. Only exception users can delete them and those same exceptional users can create them with `oc create namespace openshfit-logging`. The two actions look similar, but aren't. So I think they are symmetric. |