Skip to content

[bitnami/elasticsearch] why serviceAccount.create is true if auto mount is disabled by default? #33467

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
rmannibucau opened this issue May 6, 2025 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@rmannibucau
Copy link
Contributor

Name and Version

elasticsearch/latest

What is the problem this feature will solve?

serviceaccount(s) is(are) created by default but not mounted so looks like defaults are not aligned

What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?

disable create toggle by default (set to false)

What alternatives have you considered?

configure it explicitly

@github-actions github-actions bot added the triage Triage is needed label May 6, 2025
@javsalgar javsalgar changed the title [elasticsearch] why serviceAccount.create is true if auto mount is disabled by default? [bitnami/elasticsearch] why serviceAccount.create is true if auto mount is disabled by default? May 7, 2025
@javsalgar
Copy link
Contributor

Hi,

We prefer avoiding the use of the default service account as much as possible. Even though the mounting is disabled, let's imagine that a user wants to add a custom RBAC for special plugins. We prefer the user to set these special RBAC permissions to a different account from the default, so we avoid as much as possible to mount the default SA token.

@rmannibucau
Copy link
Contributor Author

@javsalgar hmm, wouldn't it require a restart anyway so wouldn't be an issue? My current issue is that by default you need to setup a SA with more perms than used by the runtime since you have to be able to deploy this SA.

@javsalgar
Copy link
Contributor

If that's the case, you can set the *.serviceAccount.create values to false and it will use the default SA

@rmannibucau
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is what I'm doing, this is just not very neat as experience as soon as you are not admin when deploying and it doesn't have real usage gains in practise (the custom plugin is more an exception than a default IMHO to make it clear).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants