container: add support for kubelet read only port #8071
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Co-authored-by: Stephen Lewis (Burrows) <[email protected]> [upstream:fcc529c34fcf793400595d5ad3df8924915a5976] Signed-off-by: Modular Magician <[email protected]>
c2thorn
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 5, 2024
[upstream:fcc529c34fcf793400595d5ad3df8924915a5976] Signed-off-by: Modular Magician <[email protected]>
modular-magician
deleted the
downstream-pr-fcc529c34fcf793400595d5ad3df8924915a5976
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
no_enable_insecure_kubelet_readonly_portto google_container_clusterinsecure_kubelet_readonly_port_enabledforcontainer_node_pooland friendshttps://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/how-to/disable-kubelet-readonly-port
Fixes hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#15208
Note: @trodge: may be good to get some feedback internally from Google folks about what the right default behavior should be and if this will change over time. I'm trying to do this in the least breaking (for the provider) way, but from my very quick reading of the announcements, it's possible that default behavior may change in the future (and that this may depend on new vs. existing clusters and / or based on cluster version).
Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)
Derived from GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules#11272