Bug 1838685 (OCPRHV-101)
| Summary: | OCPRHV-101: Improve ~/.ovirt/ovirt-config.yaml | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | OpenShift Container Platform | Reporter: | Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland> |
| Component: | Installer | Assignee: | Peter Lauterbach <pelauter> |
| Installer sub component: | OpenShift on RHV | QA Contact: | Lucie Leistnerova <lleistne> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | Docs Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | ||
| Priority: | medium | CC: | dmoessne, gzaidman, hpopal, jpasztor, pelauter, rgolan, vfarias |
| Version: | unspecified | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | 4.8.0 | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2021-03-30 14:15:46 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1838682, 1849398 | ||
|
Comment 2
Douglas Schilling Landgraf
2020-05-22 12:46:48 UTC
due to capacity constraints we will be revisiting this bug in the upcoming sprint *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1851901 *** (In reply to Rolfe Dlugy-Hegwer from comment #10) > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1851901 *** Hey Rolfe, I think this is not duplicate of bz#1851901. IMHO, we need to describe in our docs that this file exists and the fields inside. Same as comment #9 due to capacity constraints we will be revisiting this bug in the upcoming sprint Need to be done along sith other related bugs. due to capacity constraints we will be pushin this bug in the next release @peter.lauterbach do you have any updates on this? On my end I think that we should check the permissions on the file and that's all we can do without requiring the customer to have a larger credential infrastructure. @peter.lauterbach I checked the code and we are saving this with in 0600 mode, so I think this is a WONTFIX since we can't ask the customer to provide us with a secure enclave for credential storage. The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 500 days |