Add extra field when doing SubjectAccessReview#265
Merged
jaypipes merged 2 commits intotemporalio:mainfrom Apr 10, 2026
Merged
Conversation
|
|
jaypipes
reviewed
Apr 8, 2026
jaypipes
left a comment
jaypipes
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks very much for this @jinjiaKarl! one tiny little request for a code comment, otherwise looks fantastic. :)
Shivs11
approved these changes
Apr 8, 2026
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What was changed
Pass UserInfo.Extra fields when constructing the SubjectAccessReview for the requesting user in the WorkerResourceTemplate validating webhook.
Why?
Previously, the webhook only forwarded User and Groups to the SAR spec. This omitted the Extra field, which cloud providers like GKE use to carry IAM identity information (e.g. iam.gke.io/user-assertion). Without it, the SAR could not evaluate permissions granted via GKE IAM or GCP group membership, only direct RBAC bindings to a specific username were recognized.
Checklist
Closes Cannot delete WorkerResourceTemplate due to no permissions #263
How was this tested:
deployed to one GKE cluster, people with GKE IAM Admin permission can create/update/delete WorkerResourceTemplate resource without granting Kubernetes built-in RBAC bindings