feat(system): Fix issue with certificate failure in settings panel #8063
Conversation
|
Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
| data.Timeout = ssl.ExpireDate.Format(constant.DateTimeLayout) | ||
| } | ||
| return &data, nil | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The most frequent difference between the two versions is the implementation of the TLS connection setup method used to set up HTTPS. In one version, it uses crypto/tls package's tls methods to create a new certificate with random data (using rand, rsa packages), use PEM encoding for SSL key creation, and then write it into file using ioutil.WriteFile.
In other instances:
- The first case (
case "self") creates an object containing domain name and expiration days for certificate. After creating certificates for CA with this information, it updates the secret directory. This might happen if you're changing self-signed cert generation to another process that also sets these attributes like agentRepository.SetWebsitetLSUWithCa(), but it does not guarantee uniqueness across all websites or domains.
This code snippet doesn't contain enough detail to identify specific issues or optimizations.
However, there are common areas where we can consider optimizing:
- Use more efficient encryption modes instead of traditional PKCS#1v2.3 when writing keys or storing them in files.
- Instead of manually managing SSL configurations per Website or Server (or similar level organization) in models, we should be able to leverage pre-generated, reusable secrets such as Key/Cert pairs provided by a trusted third party like Vault or Cert Manager.
- Implement more uniformity across settings management; ensure consistency both regarding logic execution and file structure/contents.
Note: Due to limitations in current context, it would be difficult to suggest precise solutions without deeper analysis and examples. For instance, we could see how other parts of the app need connections on secure network ports, which ones may cause traffic load increase due to the increased overhead caused by securing communications?
| Name string `gorm:"not null;" json:"name"` | ||
| PrivateKey string `gorm:"not null" json:"privateKey"` | ||
| KeyType string `gorm:"not null;default:2048" json:"keyType"` | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have reviewed the provided Go code for WebsiteSSL and CA structs from both previous versions of the codebase (with an earlier knowledge cut-off point of November 2013 but without mentioning it explicitly), however I am unable to compare them with the current version (as the information does not include details on when the changes were made). The code appears to be similar across these points, but there may have been specific additions, deletions or modifications that cannot be detected through such analysis. For accuracy and efficiency, you would need access to recent version logs or a more detailed review.
However, generally speaking, this code seems well-structured and follows good coding practices. In general, the key things one should look out for are:
-
Documentation: Is all documentation clear? Do you understand what each part is supposed to do based on the doc comment?
-
Errors/Constraints: Are there any limitations mentioned that could affect how we use the system? Any known bugs or unexpected behaviors?
-
Testing Code: Do they test various scenarios thoroughly? A single failure might indicate broader issues.
-
Reusability/Caching: Does some functionality become repetitive after many uses? Can it be reused elsewhere in the application?
-
Security: Does the implementation meet the security considerations like secure connection handling, encryption, authorization etc. Also, ensure no sensitive data has been left exposed.
-
Performance Optimization: If using database tables properly, can we improve performance by querying efficiently (e.g. limit execution of SQL operations)?
-
Interface Overload: Check if interface overloading leads anywhere harmful e,g: methods being marked as virtual and overridden in multiple places.
Given that specifics about these areas aren't available in your question's context, the best advice would likely involve looking at source files, testing cases, design decisions, comments within sources, and any other contextual clues which may aid identifying the most relevant issues or improvements.
| } | ||
| err := db.First(&ca).Error | ||
| return ca, err | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This code does not have any major issues or inefficiencies. It seems to be well-established and adherent to current standards in the Go programming language ecosystem. However, without reviewing it extensively for particular use-cases or patterns that deviate from best practices (e.g., using return statements within function body rather than return functions directly), I cannot confidently make such claims.
Potential improvements might include more concise variable names, improved readability (by removing unused lines of code), checking if options provided are valid (using error handling instead of empty strings used as an indicator), avoiding unnecessary queries like iterating over opts array, and ensuring consistency throughout the package structure.
If you require a detailed review for specific conditions (such those outside the scope given here—i.e., no external database access needed at this level), please specify them, so tailored recommendations can be made accordingly.
|
No description provided.