Validation for label keys and values according to Kubernetes specification #3284

snorwin · 2024-08-20T08:23:43Z

What type of PR is this?
/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:
(see the discussion in #3197)

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #3197

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Label keys and values are validated according to the Kubernetes specification

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-08-20T08:23:53Z

Hi @snorwin. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

snorwin · 2024-08-20T08:25:24Z

apis/v1/gateway_types.go

@@ -683,7 +683,8 @@ type GatewayInfrastructure struct {
 	//
 	// +optional
 	// +kubebuilder:validation:MaxProperties=8
-	Labels map[AnnotationKey]AnnotationValue `json:"labels,omitempty"`
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:message="Label keys must be in the form of an optional DNS subdomain prefix followed by a required name segment of up to 63 characters.",rule="self.all(key, key.matches(r\"\"\"^([a-z0-9]([-a-z0-9]*[a-z0-9])?(\\.[a-z0-9]([-a-z0-9]*[a-z0-9])?)*/)?([A-Za-z0-9][-A-Za-z0-9_.]{0,61})?[A-Za-z0-9]$\"\"\"))"


The patterns, validation specified for the map's type of the key are ignored in the CRD generation therefore a CEL validation is required.

It looks like there are new pattern fields in the generated CRD, are you sure this didn't work? Although it's nice to have useful messages like this, I'm worried that the primary regexes on the LabelKey and LabelValue will gradually drift from these kinds of one-off CEL validations.

I think the pattern is related to the new LabelValue validation annotation. I didn't figure out a way to validate the key with a pattern without using CEL. Let me check the capabilities of the OpenAPI schema and kubebuilder again.

Thanks! The most important bit is that our validation works. Don't want to unnecessarily delay this. Feel free to file a follow up issue to look into what's possible here.

keithmattix · 2024-08-20T08:45:47Z

/ok-to-test

…ation Signed-off-by: Norwin Schnyder <[email protected]>

snorwin · 2024-08-20T09:36:08Z

/retest

youngnick · 2024-08-21T04:31:46Z

Nice work, this LGTM.

/approve

Signed-off-by: Norwin Schnyder <[email protected]>

snorwin · 2024-08-21T06:58:26Z

I ran further tests and found that the length of the DNS subdomain prefix of the key is not validated too, so I added another CEL validation for it.

robscott

Thanks @snorwin!

robscott · 2024-08-23T23:46:57Z

apis/v1/gateway_types.go

@@ -683,7 +683,8 @@ type GatewayInfrastructure struct {
 	//
 	// +optional
 	// +kubebuilder:validation:MaxProperties=8
-	Labels map[AnnotationKey]AnnotationValue `json:"labels,omitempty"`
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:message="Label keys must be in the form of an optional DNS subdomain prefix followed by a required name segment of up to 63 characters.",rule="self.all(key, key.matches(r\"\"\"^([a-z0-9]([-a-z0-9]*[a-z0-9])?(\\.[a-z0-9]([-a-z0-9]*[a-z0-9])?)*/)?([A-Za-z0-9][-A-Za-z0-9_.]{0,61})?[A-Za-z0-9]$\"\"\"))"


It looks like there are new pattern fields in the generated CRD, are you sure this didn't work? Although it's nice to have useful messages like this, I'm worried that the primary regexes on the LabelKey and LabelValue will gradually drift from these kinds of one-off CEL validations.

robscott · 2024-08-24T00:13:02Z

apis/v1/gateway_types.go

@@ -683,7 +683,9 @@ type GatewayInfrastructure struct {
 	//
 	// +optional
 	// +kubebuilder:validation:MaxProperties=8
-	Labels map[AnnotationKey]AnnotationValue `json:"labels,omitempty"`
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:message="Label keys must be in the form of an optional DNS subdomain prefix followed by a required name segment of up to 63 characters.",rule="self.all(key, key.matches(r\"\"\"^([a-z0-9]([-a-z0-9]*[a-z0-9])?(\\.[a-z0-9]([-a-z0-9]*[a-z0-9])?)*/)?([A-Za-z0-9][-A-Za-z0-9_.]{0,61})?[A-Za-z0-9]$\"\"\"))"
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:message="If specified, the label key's prefix must be a DNS subdomain not longer than 253 characters in total.",rule="self.all(key, key.split(\"/\")[0].size() < 253)"


I think this is irrelevant as the max length of a label name appears to be 63:

https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/bd6f29fa2879ff1ef42eb0cc792e45d1e9c52a2f/staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1/validation/validation.go#L102
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/bd6f29fa2879ff1ef42eb0cc792e45d1e9c52a2f/staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/validation/validation.go#L64

Would like to make it easier to keep track of this in the future. It would be great to have a comment close to wherever we define the regex that links to the corresponding upstream validation. With that said, we probably shouldn't litter our reference docs with this kind of information, so maybe adding another carve out here to add comments that don't actually make it to the CRD would be useful:

gateway-api/pkg/generator/main.go

Line 138 in f7d4a87

func gatewayTweaks(channel string, props map[string]apiext.JSONSchemaProps) map[string]apiext.JSONSchemaProps {

That last bit can easily be a follow up, so feel free to just create a follow up issue with links to the k8s validation that we're trying to replicate and our corresponding regex validation.

Maybe I'm wrong but only the actual name (with out the domain prefix) is restricted to 63 characters which is enforced using the repetition count {0,61} in the regex pattern. However the length of of the DNS prefix should be not longer than 253.

Valid label keys have two segments: an optional prefix and name, separated by a slash (/). The name segment is required and must be 63 characters or less, beginning and ending with an alphanumeric character ([a-z0-9A-Z]) with dashes (-), underscores (_), dots (.), and alphanumerics between. The prefix is optional. If specified, the prefix must be a DNS subdomain: a series of DNS labels separated by dots (.), not longer than 253 characters in total, followed by a slash (/).

(https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/overview/working-with-objects/labels/#syntax-and-character-set)

I will add a comment pointing to the relevant resources.

I will add a comment pointing to the relevant resources.

Thanks! I created #3306, if you want to just leave a comment on that issue for now, we can go back through and add this to the spec when it's done.

Maybe I'm wrong but only the actual name (with out the domain prefix) is restricted to 63 characters which is enforced using the repetition count {0,61} in the regex pattern. However the length of of the DNS prefix should be not longer than 253.

Good catch, I think I misread the upstream validation.

shaneutt

Given the complexity with some of these regexes, we should add tests here validating these.

keithmattix · 2024-08-27T16:12:52Z

@snorwin Let me know if you're able/wanting to tackle the tests; happy to help if needed!

snorwin · 2024-08-28T08:55:16Z

@keithmattix I have added some tests, maybe you can take a look and let me know if it looks good, I would then create similar tests for the annotations.

snorwin · 2024-08-28T09:26:01Z

It seems that the tests run against the standard CRDs, is there a way to write tests for experimental functions as well?

keithmattix · 2024-08-28T13:08:04Z

#3272 moves these fields to standard so maybe pull in those changes?

keithmattix · 2024-08-29T16:04:25Z

@snorwin you could also try this approach which is per-channel. You create test files instead of Go test cases

robscott · 2024-08-29T16:51:42Z

@snorwin You'd need a separate file with an experimental build tag to write CEL tests that target experimental channel. Here's an example:

gateway-api/pkg/test/cel/httproute_experimental_test.go

Lines 1 to 2 in b4bff75

    
           //go:build experimental 
        
           // +build experimental

didn't mean to block

Signed-off-by: Norwin Schnyder <[email protected]>

keithmattix · 2024-09-03T15:24:56Z

Thanks @snorwin! Tests look good to me
/approve

shaneutt

/approve

but I will defer to @mlavacca, @robscott or @youngnick to LGTM

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-09-03T15:35:07Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: keithmattix, shaneutt, snorwin, youngnick

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [shaneutt,youngnick]

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

robscott

Thanks @snorwin!

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Aug 20, 2024

k8s-ci-robot requested review from mlavacca and youngnick August 20, 2024 08:23

k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 20, 2024

snorwin commented Aug 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

snorwin mentioned this pull request Aug 20, 2024

Remove experimental from gateway infrastructure #3272

Merged

k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Aug 20, 2024

snorwin force-pushed the infrastructure-label-validation branch from b1473ec to 2ec4cb8 Compare August 20, 2024 09:20

Validation for label keys and values according to Kubernetes specific…

28e6f1e

…ation Signed-off-by: Norwin Schnyder <[email protected]>

snorwin force-pushed the infrastructure-label-validation branch from 2ec4cb8 to 28e6f1e Compare August 20, 2024 09:21

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 21, 2024

Validate prefix length of DNS subdomain in label and anootaion keys

cdc8e22

Signed-off-by: Norwin Schnyder <[email protected]>

robscott reviewed Aug 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

shaneutt previously requested changes Aug 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 28, 2024

snorwin force-pushed the infrastructure-label-validation branch from f0c3004 to 70f449f Compare September 2, 2024 07:25

add tests for label key and value validation

3b35eef

Signed-off-by: Norwin Schnyder <[email protected]>

snorwin force-pushed the infrastructure-label-validation branch from 70f449f to 3b35eef Compare September 2, 2024 07:28

snorwin requested a review from shaneutt September 2, 2024 07:29

shaneutt approved these changes Sep 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

robscott reviewed Sep 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned robscott Sep 3, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 3, 2024

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 8af72eb into kubernetes-sigs:main Sep 3, 2024
8 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Validation for label keys and values according to Kubernetes specification #3284

Validation for label keys and values according to Kubernetes specification #3284

snorwin commented Aug 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Aug 20, 2024

snorwin Aug 20, 2024

robscott Aug 23, 2024

snorwin Aug 26, 2024

robscott Aug 26, 2024

keithmattix commented Aug 20, 2024

snorwin commented Aug 20, 2024

youngnick commented Aug 21, 2024

snorwin commented Aug 21, 2024

robscott left a comment

robscott Aug 23, 2024

robscott Aug 24, 2024

snorwin Aug 26, 2024

snorwin Aug 26, 2024

robscott Aug 30, 2024

robscott Aug 30, 2024

shaneutt left a comment

keithmattix commented Aug 27, 2024

snorwin commented Aug 28, 2024

snorwin commented Aug 28, 2024

keithmattix commented Aug 28, 2024

keithmattix commented Aug 29, 2024

robscott commented Aug 29, 2024

keithmattix commented Sep 3, 2024

shaneutt left a comment •

edited

Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Sep 3, 2024

robscott left a comment

Validation for label keys and values according to Kubernetes specification #3284

Validation for label keys and values according to Kubernetes specification #3284

Conversation

snorwin commented Aug 20, 2024 • edited Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Aug 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

keithmattix commented Aug 20, 2024

snorwin commented Aug 20, 2024

youngnick commented Aug 21, 2024

snorwin commented Aug 21, 2024

robscott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shaneutt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

keithmattix commented Aug 27, 2024

snorwin commented Aug 28, 2024

snorwin commented Aug 28, 2024

keithmattix commented Aug 28, 2024

keithmattix commented Aug 29, 2024

robscott commented Aug 29, 2024

keithmattix commented Sep 3, 2024

shaneutt left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k8s-ci-robot commented Sep 3, 2024

robscott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

snorwin commented Aug 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

shaneutt left a comment •

edited

Loading