The MCE hypershift container needs changes to the exceptions in place

[gparvin]

The FIPS scans are failing in our konflux builds due to problems with the hypershift "extra" binaries. The current exceptions for these binaries is not correctly preventing the scanner from erroring on these binaries. Tested with the latest image from our MCE 2.18.3 release

Refs:

• https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ACM-24281

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: gparvin
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign ashwindasr 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:

• dist/releases/OWNERS

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

[openshift-ci]

@gparvin: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[smith-xyz]

/lgtm

[gparvin]

@rhmdnd Was there more work the ACM team needed to look into on this PR? Thanks

[gparvin]

FYI: Since we can't seem to get this PR delivered we will have to extend our FIPS exception in konflux which causes us to "not see" any FIPS issues we need to address. If there's a concern with this PR please let me know.

[smith-xyz]

@rhmdnd @gparvin @rphillips - I believe the exception just adds "/usr/bin/hcp" and is used for QE testing.

I'm wondering if it is worth adding some comments around these exceptions to make clear why the exceptions are being added, noting how the inclusion of said binaries impacts customers directly/indirectly, does it ever get filtered out later in some other process, etc.

[rhmdnd]

@rhmdnd @gparvin @rphillips - I believe the exception just adds "/usr/bin/hcp" and is used for QE testing.

I'm wondering if it is worth adding some comments around these exceptions to make clear why the exceptions are being added, noting how the inclusion of said binaries impacts customers directly/indirectly, does it ever get filtered out later in some other process, etc.

+1

Yeah, comments would help at least a little bit. If the hcp binary is only used for testing purposes, does it have to be in the payload container? Can it be distributed to people who need to test with it in a different way such that it's not exposed to users?

[smith-xyz]

/lgtm cancel

[openshift-merge-robot]

PR needs rebase.

Details

Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository.

[smith-xyz]

@gparvin is this change still needed? I think we want to tread carefully and provide ample justification on why test binaries or anything that is of necessity to customer is in the payload for any given component.

[gparvin]

Yes, this is still needed. It isn't the only FIPS exception that ACM requires at the moment but it is in the only exception in our MCE operator releases. It would be nice if we could start getting clean FIPS run with this for at least our MCE operator. @rokej Let me know if anything has changed that you know of.

[rokej]

@gparvin Yes, we still need these exceptions. Thanks.

[smith-xyz]

great @gparvin @rokej if you can just see Lance's comment here: #282 (comment)

I think we just want to have some form of justification on why the payload needs the binaries - justification for why its okay to be there. Ideally, anything that are test related or something that doesn't bring value to the customer should be distributed differently.

Feel free to reference once in the latest release config and just mentioned that it is in the previous 4.x versions.