Skip to content

Add Explicit Private Key Stanzas for Metrics and Webhook Services Configured with Cert Manager - #649

Open
subecho wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
add-explicit-private-key-stanza
Open

Add Explicit Private Key Stanzas for Metrics and Webhook Services Configured with Cert Manager#649
subecho wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
add-explicit-private-key-stanza

Conversation

@subecho

@subecho subecho commented Jul 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Previously, we did not specify the parameters of the private keys that would generated for the Metrics and Webhook services in the Infra Operator, relying instead on whatever the defaults might be.

As we move towards enabling post-quantum safety in our operators, we are starting by explicitly stating what the private key algorithm and key size shall be. This is to ensure that the keys are exactly what we want them to be and to provide an easy-to-configure place to change the algorithm and key size should the need arise (such as when quantum safe algorithms become available to use for generating private keys.)

subecho added 2 commits July 28, 2026 14:45
This patch adds an explicit private key stanza for generating the
private key for the metrics service. This will, eventually, be replaced
by quantum-safe algorithms and sizes when those become available.
This patch adds an explicit private key stanza for generating the
private key for the webhook service. This will, as with the metrics
service, be replaced by quantum-safe algorithms and sizes when those
become available.
@openshift-ci
openshift-ci Bot requested a review from abays July 29, 2026 18:05
@openshift-ci

openshift-ci Bot commented Jul 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: subecho
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign lmiccini for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@stuggi

stuggi commented Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

we could make this change in the infra-operator, but to change this in the product we need openstack-k8s-operators/openstack-operator#1973 . best we sync with @fmount when he is back from pto on which size we use.

@subecho

subecho commented Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

we could make this change in the infra-operator, but to change this in the product we need openstack-k8s-operators/openstack-operator#1973 . best we sync with @fmount when he is back from pto on which size we use.

Makes sense to me! I was using the recommendations from the PQC scans that we did a while ago which looks to be the same ones being utilized in openstack-k8s-operators/openstack-operator#1973. Happy to help out however I can! Thanks @stuggi!

@fmount

fmount commented Aug 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

we could make this change in the infra-operator, but to change this in the product we need openstack-k8s-operators/openstack-operator#1973 . best we sync with @fmount when he is back from pto on which size we use.

Makes sense to me! I was using the recommendations from the PQC scans that we did a while ago which looks to be the same ones being utilized in openstack-k8s-operators/openstack-operator#1973. Happy to help out however I can! Thanks @stuggi!

Hey @subecho thanks for this. In theory this change makes sense because aligns the OLM deployment part of infra-operator w/ the final configuration we want to achieve.
However, as @stuggi pointed out, except for openstack-operator we deploy all the operators from it by rendering the required assets. This makes this patch less important but it still makes sense.
Let's align first on the long term goal so we can maybe plan to do the same across the openstack-operators.

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.

3 participants