You are viewing documentation for Kubernetes version: v1.26
Kubernetes v1.26 documentation is no longer actively maintained. The version you are currently viewing is a static snapshot. For up-to-date information, see the latest version.
Defining Network Policy Conformance for Container Network Interface (CNI) providers
Authors: Matt Fenwick (Synopsys), Jay Vyas (VMWare), Ricardo Katz, Amim Knabben (Loadsmart), Douglas Schilling Landgraf (Red Hat), Christopher Tomkins (Tigera)
Special thanks to Tim Hockin and Bowie Du (Google), Dan Winship and Antonio Ojea (Red Hat), Casey Davenport and Shaun Crampton (Tigera), and Abhishek Raut and Antonin Bas (VMware) for being supportive of this work, and working with us to resolve issues in different Container Network Interfaces (CNIs) over time.
A brief conversation around "node local" Network Policies in April of 2020 inspired the creation of a NetworkPolicy subproject from SIG Network. It became clear that as a community, we need a rock-solid story around how to do pod network security on Kubernetes, and this story needed a community around it, so as to grow the cultural adoption of enterprise security patterns in K8s.
In this post we'll discuss:
- Why we created a subproject for Network Policies
- How we changed the Kubernetes e2e framework to
visualizeNetworkPolicy implementation of your CNI provider - The initial results of our comprehensive NetworkPolicy conformance validator, Cyclonus, built around these principles
- Improvements subproject contributors have made to the NetworkPolicy user experience
Why we created a subproject for NetworkPolicies
In April of 2020 it was becoming clear that many CNIs were emerging, and many vendors implement these CNIs in subtly different ways. Users were beginning to express a little bit of confusion around how to implement policies for different scenarios, and asking for new features. It was clear that we needed to begin unifying the way we think about Network Policies in Kubernetes, to avoid API fragmentation and unnecessary complexity.
For example:
- In order to be flexible to the user’s environment, Calico as a CNI provider can be run using IPIP or VXLAN mode, or without encapsulation overhead. CNIs such as Antrea and Cilium offer similar configuration options as well.
- Some CNI plugins offer iptables for NetworkPolicies amongst other options, whereas other CNIs use a completely different technology stack (for example, the Antrea project uses Open vSwitch rules).
- Some CNI plugins only implement a subset of the Kubernetes NetworkPolicy API, and some a superset. For example, certain plugins don't support the ability to target a named port; others don't work with certain IP address types, and there are diverging semantics for similar policy types.
- Some CNI plugins combine with OTHER CNI plugins in order to implement NetworkPolicies (canal), some CNI's might mix implementations (multus), and some clouds do routing separately from NetworkPolicy implementation.
Although this complexity is to some extent necessary to support different environments, end-users find that they need to follow a multistep process to implement Network Policies to secure their applications:
- Confirm that their network plugin supports NetworkPolicies (some don't, such as Flannel)
- Confirm that their cluster's network plugin supports the specific NetworkPolicy features that they are interested in (again, the named port or port range examples come to mind here)
- Confirm that their application's Network Policy definitions are doing the right thing
- Find out the nuances of a vendor's implementation of policy, and check whether or not that implementation has a CNI neutral implementation (which is sometimes adequate for users)
The NetworkPolicy project in upstream Kubernetes aims at providing a community where people can learn about, and contribute to, the Kubernetes NetworkPolicy API and the surrounding ecosystem.
The First step: A validation framework for NetworkPolicies that was intuitive to use and understand
The Kubernetes end to end suite has always had NetworkPolicy tests, but these weren't run in CI, and the way they were implemented didn't provide holistic, easily consumable information about how a policy was working in a cluster. This is because the original tests didn't provide any kind of visual summary of connectivity across a cluster. We thus initially set out to make it easy to confirm CNI support for NetworkPolicies by making the end to end tests (which are often used by administrators or users to diagnose cluster conformance) easy to interpret.
To solve the problem of confirming that CNIs support the basic features most users care about for a policy, we built a new NetworkPolicy validation tool into the Kubernetes e2e framework which allows for visual inspection of policies and their effect on a standard set of pods in a cluster. For example, take the following test output. We found a bug in OVN Kubernetes. This bug has now been resolved. With this tool the bug was really easy to characterize, wherein certain policies caused a state-modification that, later on, caused traffic to incorrectly be blocked (even after all Network Policies were deleted from the cluster).
This is the network policy for the test in question:
metadata:
creationTimestamp: null
name: allow-ingress-port-80
spec:
ingress:
- ports:
- port: serve-80-tcp
podSelector: {}
These are the expected connectivity results. The test setup is 9 pods (3 namespaces: x, y, and z; and 3 pods in each namespace: a, b, and c); each pod runs a server on the same port and protocol that can be reached through HTTP calls in the absence of network policies. Connectivity is verified by using the agnhost network utility to issue HTTP calls on a port and protocol that other pods are expected to be serving. A test scenario first runs a connectivity check to ensure that each pod can reach each other pod, for 81 (= 9 x 9) data points. This is the "control". Then perturbations are applied, depending on the test scenario: policies are created, updated, and deleted; labels are added and removed from pods and namespaces, and so on. After each change, the connectivity matrix is recollected and compared to the expected connectivity.
These results give a visual indication of connectivity in a simple matrix. Going down the leftmost column is the "source"
pod, or the pod issuing the request; going across the topmost row is the "destination" pod, or the pod
receiving the request. A . means that the connection was allowed; an X means the connection was
blocked. For example:
Nov 4 16:58:43.449: INFO: expected:
- x/a x/b x/c y/a y/b y/c z/a z/b z/c
x/a . . . . . . . . .
x/b . . . . . . . . .
x/c . . . . . . . . .
y/a . . . . . . . . .
y/b . . . . . . . . .
y/c . . . . . . . . .
z/a . . . . . . . . .
z/b . . . . . . . . .
z/c . . . . . . . . .
Below are the observed connectivity results in the case of the OVN Kubernetes bug. Notice how the top three rows indicate that all requests from namespace x regardless of pod and destination were blocked. Since these experimental results do not match the expected results, a failure will be reported. Note how the specific pattern of failure provides clear insight into the nature of the problem -- since all requests from a specific namespace fail, we have a clear clue to start our investigation.
Nov 4 16:58:43.449: INFO: observed:
- x/a x/b x/c y/a y/b y/c z/a z/b z/c
x/a X X X X X X X X X
x/b X X X X X X X X X
x/c X X X X X X X X X
y/a . . . . . . . . .
y/b . . . . . . . . .
y/c . . . . . . . . .
z/a . . . . . . . . .
z/b . . . . . . . . .
z/c . . . . . . . . .
This was one of our earliest wins in the Network Policy group, as we were able to identify and work with the OVN Kubernetes group to fix a bug in egress policy processing.
However, even though this tool has made it easy to validate roughly 30 common scenarios, it doesn't validate all Network Policy scenarios - because there are an enormous number of possible permutations that one might create (technically, we might say this number is infinite given that there's an infinite number of possible namespace/pod/port/protocol variations one can create).
Once these tests were in play, we worked with the Upstream SIG Network and SIG Testing communities (thanks to Antonio Ojea and Ben Elder) to put a testgrid Network Policy job in place. This job continuously runs the entire suite of Network Policy tests against GCE with Calico as a Network Policy provider.
Part of our role as a subproject is to help make sure that, when these tests break, we can help triage them effectively.
Cyclonus: The next step towards Network Policy conformance
Around the time that we were finishing the validation work, it became clear from the community that, in general, we needed to solve the overall problem of testing ALL possible Network Policy implementations. For example, a KEP was recently written which introduced the concept of micro versioning to Network Policies to accommodate describing this at the API level, by Dan Winship.
In response to this increasingly obvious need to comprehensively evaluate Network Policy implementations from all vendors, Matt Fenwick decided to evolve our approach to Network Policy validation again by creating Cyclonus.
Cyclonus is a comprehensive Network Policy fuzzing tool which verifies a CNI provider against hundreds of different Network Policy scenarios, by defining similar truth table/policy combinations as demonstrated in the end to end tests, while also providing a hierarchical representation of policy "categories". We've found some interesting nuances and issues in almost every CNI we've tested so far, and have even contributed some fixes back.
To perform a Cyclonus validation run, you create a Job manifest similar to:
apiVersion: batch/v1
kind: Job
metadata:
name: cyclonus
spec:
template:
spec:
restartPolicy: Never
containers:
- command:
- ./cyclonus
- generate
- --perturbation-wait-seconds=15
- --server-protocol=tcp,udp
name: cyclonus
imagePullPolicy: IfNotPresent
image: mfenwick100/cyclonus:latest
serviceAccount: cyclonus
Cyclonus outputs a report of all the test cases it will run:
test cases to run by tag:
- target: 6
- peer-ipblock: 4
- udp: 16
- delete-pod: 1
- conflict: 16
- multi-port/protocol: 14
- ingress: 51
- all-pods: 14
- egress: 51
- all-namespaces: 10
- sctp: 10
- port: 56
- miscellaneous: 22
- direction: 100
- multi-peer: 0
- any-port-protocol: 2
- set-namespace-labels: 1
- upstream-e2e: 0
- allow-all: 6
- namespaces-by-label: 6
- deny-all: 10
- pathological: 6
- action: 6
- rule: 30
- policy-namespace: 4
- example: 0
- tcp: 16
- target-namespace: 3
- named-port: 24
- update-policy: 1
- any-peer: 2
- target-pod-selector: 3
- IP-block-with-except: 2
- pods-by-label: 6
- numbered-port: 28
- protocol: 42
- peer-pods: 20
- create-policy: 2
- policy-stack: 0
- any-port: 14
- delete-namespace: 1
- delete-policy: 1
- create-pod: 1
- IP-block-no-except: 2
- create-namespace: 1
- set-pod-labels: 1
testing 112 cases
Note that Cyclonus tags its tests based on the type of policy being created, because the policies themselves are auto-generated, and thus have no meaningful names to be recognized by.
For each test, Cyclonus outputs a truth table, which is again similar to that of the E2E tests, along with the policy being validated:
apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1
kind: NetworkPolicy
metadata:
creationTimestamp: null
name: base
namespace: x
spec:
egress:
- ports:
- port: 81
to:
- namespaceSelector:
matchExpressions:
- key: ns
operator: In
values:
- "y"
- z
podSelector:
matchExpressions:
- key: pod
operator: In
values:
- a
- b
- ports:
- port: 53
protocol: UDP
ingress:
- from:
- namespaceSelector:
matchExpressions:
- key: ns
operator: In
values:
- x
- "y"
podSelector:
matchExpressions:
- key: pod
operator: In
values:
- b
- c
ports:
- port: 80
protocol: TCP
podSelector:
matchLabels:
pod: a
policyTypes:
- Ingress
- Egress
0 wrong, 0 ignored, 81 correct
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| TCP/80 | X/A | X/B | X/C | Y/A | Y/B | Y/C | Z/A | Z/B | Z/C |
| TCP/81 | | | | | | | | | |
| UDP/80 | | | | | | | | | |
| UDP/81 | | | | | | | | | |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| x/a | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| | X | X | X | . | . | X | . | . | X |
| | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| x/b | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| x/c | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| y/a | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| y/b | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| y/c | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| z/a | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| z/b | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| z/c | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
| | X | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Both Cyclonus and the e2e tests use the same strategy to validate a Network Policy - probing pods over TCP or UDP, with SCTP support available as well for CNIs that support it (such as Calico).
As examples of how we use Cyclonus to help make CNI implementations better from a Network Policy perspective, you can see the following issues:
- Antrea: NetworkPolicy: unable to allow ingress by CIDR
- Calico: default missing protocol to TCP; don't let single port overwrite all ports
- Cilium: Egress Network Policy allows traffic that should be denied
The good news is that Antrea and Calico have already merged fixes for all the issues found and other CNI providers are working on it, with the support of SIG Network and the Network Policy subproject.
Are you interested in verifying NetworkPolicy functionality on your cluster? (if you care about security or offer multi-tenant SaaS, you should be) If so, you can run the upstream end to end tests, or Cyclonus, or both.
- If you're just getting started with NetworkPolicies and want to simply verify the "common" NetworkPolicy cases that most CNIs should be implementing correctly, in a way that is quick to diagnose, then you're better off running the e2e tests only.
- If you are deeply curious about your CNI provider's NetworkPolicy implementation, and want to verify it: use Cyclonus.
- If you want to test hundreds of policies, and evaluate your CNI plugin for comprehensive functionality, for deep discovery of potential security holes: use Cyclonus, and also consider running end-to-end cluster tests.
- If you're thinking of getting involved with the upstream NetworkPolicy efforts: use Cyclonus, and read at least an outline of which e2e tests are relevant.
Where to start with NetworkPolicy testing?
- Cyclonus is easy to run on your cluster, check out the instructions on github, and determine whether your specific CNI configuration is fully conformant to the hundreds of different Kubernetes Network Policy API constructs.
- Alternatively, you can use a tool like sonobuoy
to run the existing E2E tests in Kubernetes, with the
--ginkgo.focus=NetworkPolicyflag. Make sure that you use the K8s conformance image for K8s 1.21 or above (for example, by using the--kube-conformance-image-version v1.21.0flag), as older images will not have the new Network Policy tests in them.
Improvements to the NetworkPolicy API and user experience
In addition to cleaning up the validation story for CNI plugins that implement NetworkPolicies, subproject contributors have also spent some time improving the Kubernetes NetworkPolicy API for a few commonly requested features. After months of deliberation, we eventually settled on a few core areas for improvement:
Port Range policies: We now allow you to specify a range of ports for a policy. This allows users interested in scenarios like FTP or virtualization to enable advanced policies. The port range option for network policies will be available to use in Kubernetes 1.21. Read more in targeting a range of ports.
Namespace as name policies: Allowing users in Kubernetes >= 1.21 to target namespaces using names, when building Network Policy objects. This was done in collaboration with Jordan Liggitt and Tim Hockin on the API Machinery side. This change allowed us to improve the Network Policy user experience without actually changing the API! For more details, you can read Automatic labelling in the page about Namespaces. The TL,DR; is that for Kubernetes 1.21 and later, all namespaces have the following label added by default:
kubernetes.io/metadata.name: <name-of-namespace>
This means you can write a namespace policy against this namespace, even if you can't edit its labels.
For example, this policy, will 'just work', without needing to run a command such as kubectl edit namespace.
In fact, it will even work if you can't edit or view this namespace's data at all, because of the magic of API server defaulting.
apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1
kind: NetworkPolicy
metadata:
name: test-network-policy
namespace: default
spec:
podSelector:
matchLabels:
role: db
policyTypes:
- Ingress
# Allow inbound traffic to Pods labelled role=db, in the namespace 'default'
# provided that the source is a Pod in the namespace 'my-namespace'
ingress:
- from:
- namespaceSelector:
matchLabels:
kubernetes.io/metadata.name: my-namespace
Results
In our tests, we found that:
- Antrea and Calico are at a point where they support all of cyclonus's scenarios, modulo a few very minor tweaks which we've made.
- Cilium also conformed to the majority of the policies, outside known features that aren't fully supported (for example, related to the way Cilium deals with pod CIDR policies).
If you are a CNI provider and interested in helping us to do a better job curating large tests of network policies, please reach out! We are continuing to curate the Network Policy conformance results from Cyclonus here, but we are not capable of maintaining all of the subtleties in NetworkPolicy testing data on our own. For now, we use github actions and Kind to test in CI.
The Future
We're also working on some improvements for the future of Network Policies, including:
- Fully qualified Domain policies: The Google Cloud team created a prototype (which we are really excited about) of FQDN policies. This tool uses the Network Policy API to enforce policies against L7 URLs, by finding their IPs and blocking them proactively when requests are made.
- Cluster Administrative policies: We're working hard at enabling administrative or cluster scoped Network Policies for the future. These are being presented iteratively to the NetworkPolicy subproject. You can read about them here in Cluster Scoped Network Policy.
The Network Policy subproject meets on mondays at 4PM EST. For details, check out the SIG Network community repo. We'd love to hang out with you, hack on stuff, and help you adopt K8s Network Policies for your cluster wherever possible.
A quick note on User Feedback
We've gotten a lot of ideas and feedback from users on Network Policies. A lot of people have interesting ideas about Network Policies, but we've found that as a subproject, very few people were deeply interested in implementing these ideas to the full extent.
Almost every change to the NetworkPolicy API includes weeks or months of discussion to cover different cases, and ensure no CVEs are being introduced. Thus, long term ownership is the biggest impediment in improving the NetworkPolicy user experience for us, over time.
- We've documented a lot of the history of the Network Policy dialogue here.
- We've also taken a poll of users, for what they'd like to see in the Network Policy API here.
We encourage anyone to provide us with feedback, but our most pressing issues right now involve finding long term owners to help us drive changes.
This doesn't require a lot of technical knowledge, but rather, just a long term commitment to helping us stay organized, do paperwork, and iterate through the many stages of the K8s feature process. If you want to help us and get involved, please reach out on the SIG Network mailing list, or in the SIG Network room in the k8s.io slack channel!
Anyone can put an oar in the water and help make NetworkPolices better!