ROX-31227: Add and store tailored profiles equivalence hash#19561
Draft
guzalv wants to merge 7 commits intomaster-base/gualvare/fix-compliance-custom-rules-gotchasfrom
Draft
Conversation
This solves the issue but injects fake data - custom rules don't have the annotation. Let's implement this in the central converter instead - we have all the data required there. This reverts commit 4cd180b.
- Remove else branch (idiomatic early-assignment style) - Add permanent link to CO's IDToDNSFriendlyName in comment (importing compliance-operator/pkg/utils would pull in unrelated transitive deps) - Add idToDNSFriendlyName test case for xccdf_org.ssgproject.rule_abc (no content_ segment: prefix not stripped) - Fix ambiguous regular-rule test: RuleId now produces a different value from idToDNSFriendlyName so that the test proves parentRule comes from the annotation, not from the RuleId transformation - Add explicit (wrong) annotation to custom rule test to confirm it is ignored in favour of idToDNSFriendlyName(RuleId) Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Contributor
Author
|
This change is part of the following stack:
Change managed by git-spice. |
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
9 tasks
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey - I've found 1 issue, and left some high level feedback:
- The tests assume that the V2 profile message is always at index 1 in
ForwardMessages, which is a bit brittle; consider asserting on message type or filtering for theComplianceOperatorProfileV2message instead of relying on a fixed position. computeProfileEquivalenceHashmanually threadsname,namespace,description,title, and rule names; consider accepting aTailoredProfile(or its spec) directly so that any future additions to the equivalence criteria are harder to forget and easier to maintain.
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- The tests assume that the V2 profile message is always at index 1 in `ForwardMessages`, which is a bit brittle; consider asserting on message type or filtering for the `ComplianceOperatorProfileV2` message instead of relying on a fixed position.
- `computeProfileEquivalenceHash` manually threads `name`, `namespace`, `description`, `title`, and rule names; consider accepting a `TailoredProfile` (or its spec) directly so that any future additions to the equivalence criteria are harder to forget and easier to maintain.
## Individual Comments
### Comment 1
<location path="sensor/kubernetes/complianceoperator/dispatchers/complianceoperatortailoredprofiles.go" line_range="138" />
<code_context>
+ ruleNames = append(ruleNames, rule.GetName())
}
+ protoProfileV2.EquivalenceHash = computeProfileEquivalenceHash(
+ tailoredProfile.GetName(),
+ tailoredProfile.GetNamespace(),
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**issue (bug_risk):** Equivalence hash ignores values/variables, which may cause distinct tailored profiles to collide
Since the hash only uses name, namespace, description, title, and rule names, two tailored profiles that differ only in variable/value settings will produce the same EquivalenceHash and be treated as equivalent despite differing behavior. Consider including a canonicalized representation of these values/variables in the hash input to distinguish such profiles.
</issue_to_address>Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
| ruleNames = append(ruleNames, rule.GetName()) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| protoProfileV2.EquivalenceHash = computeProfileEquivalenceHash( |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (bug_risk): Equivalence hash ignores values/variables, which may cause distinct tailored profiles to collide
Since the hash only uses name, namespace, description, title, and rule names, two tailored profiles that differ only in variable/value settings will produce the same EquivalenceHash and be treated as equivalent despite differing behavior. Consider including a canonicalized representation of these values/variables in the hash input to distinguish such profiles.
Contributor
|
Images are ready for the commit at 545cc11. To use with deploy scripts, first |
f9bb406 to
8c838fb
Compare
9 tasks
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
2 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.
Description
change me!
User-facing documentation
Testing and quality
Automated testing
How I validated my change
change me!