Annotations/AuthTLS: Allow named redirects.

[Dean-Coakley]

What this PR does / why we need it:

fixes: #13736

• Allows named redirects in nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/auth-tls-error-page annotation.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• CVE Report (Scanner found CVE and adding report)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation only

Which issue/s this PR fixes

How Has This Been Tested?

Checklist:

• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I've read the CONTRIBUTION guide
• I have added unit and/or e2e tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @Dean-Coakley!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/ingress-nginx 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/ingress-nginx has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Dean-Coakley
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign strongjz for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @Dean-Coakley. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes 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.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-ingress-nginx canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	d2a3f94
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/kubernetes-ingress-nginx/deploys/68a886c4228b0d00082d9320

[Dean-Coakley]

I drafted a test case but it does not look like many input cases are normally added. Let me know if it is desired to be included or fine as-is.

diff --git a/internal/ingress/annotations/authtls/main_test.go b/internal/ingress/annotations/authtls/main_test.go
index 37342e513..acdf3a017 100644
--- a/internal/ingress/annotations/authtls/main_test.go
+++ b/internal/ingress/annotations/authtls/main_test.go
@@ -163,15 +163,38 @@ func TestAnnotations(t *testing.T) {
        if u.ValidationDepth != 2 {
                t.Errorf("expected %v but got %v", 2, u.ValidationDepth)
        }
-       if u.ErrorPage != "ok.com/error" {
-               t.Errorf("expected %v but got %v", "ok.com/error", u.ErrorPage)
-       }
        if u.PassCertToUpstream != true {
                t.Errorf("expected %v but got %v", true, u.PassCertToUpstream)
        }
        if u.MatchCN != "CN=(hello-app|ok|goodbye)" {
                t.Errorf("expected %v but got %v", "CN=(hello-app|ok|goodbye)", u.MatchCN)
        }
+
+       for _, tc := range []struct {
+               name      string
+               errorPage string
+               want      string
+       }{
+               {"named redirect", "@401", "@401"},
+               {"named redirect", "@four_oh_one", "@four_oh_one"},
+               {"url redirect", "ok.com/error", "ok.com/error"},
+       } {
+               t.Run(tc.name, func(t *testing.T) {
+                       data[parser.GetAnnotationWithPrefix(annotationAuthTLSErrorPage)] = tc.errorPage
+                       ing.SetAnnotations(data)
+                       i, err := NewParser(fakeSecret).Parse(ing)
+                       if err != nil {
+                               t.Errorf("Unexpected error with ingress: %v", err)
+                       }
+                       u, ok := i.(*Config)
+                       if !ok {
+                               t.Errorf("expected *Config but got %v", u)
+                       }
+                       if u.ErrorPage != tc.want {
+                               t.Errorf("expected %v but got %v", tc.want, u.ErrorPage)
+                       }
+               })
+       }
 }

[rittneje]

@Dean-Coakley @401 was just an example. I’m not sure if NGINX actually enforces anything about legal characters but for our purposes something like [a-zA-Z0-9_-]+ would suffice.

[Dean-Coakley]

True.

From: https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_core_module.html#location

The “@” prefix defines a named location. Such a location is not used for a regular request processing, but instead used for request redirection.

If you search around that doc for "@" you can see plenty of examples of other named rewrites. Will update

[Gacko]

Please implement tests for this. Thank you!

[Gacko]

/triage accepted
/kind feature
/priority backlog
/hold

[rittneje]

@Gacko As I mentioned, this bug currently blocks our ability to upgrade, so I'd really like a 1.13.2 release with this change. Will you backport this change to the 1.13 branch after merging?