-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 546
docs: s3: SSE configuration docs #2365
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Yamin <[email protected]>
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe S3 output plugin docs add two public configuration parameters, Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes Suggested labels
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
@GabrielYamin I think this is functionality waiting for the PR to be merged right? |
|
@patrick-stephens, The BL PR is still in draft, I'll be opening it for review very soon. |
|
PR is ready for review @patrick-stephens |
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Yamin <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
pipeline/outputs/s3.md (1)
117-132: Document required KMS permissions for SSE-KMS encryption.The permissions section only lists
s3:PutObject, but when usingsse: aws:kmsorsse: aws:kms:dsse, additional KMS permissions are required. Without these, uploads will fail with permission errors.Required KMS permissions:
kms:GenerateDataKey- Required for encrypting objectskms:Decrypt- Required if using customer-managed keys📋 Suggested documentation update
Add a new subsection after line 132:
### Additional permissions for SSE-KMS When using server-side encryption with AWS KMS (`sse: aws:kms` or `sse: aws:kms:dsse`), the following KMS permissions are also required: ```json { "Version": "2012-10-17", "Statement": [{ "Effect": "Allow", "Action": [ "kms:GenerateDataKey", "kms:Decrypt" ], "Resource": "arn:aws:kms:region:account-id:key/key-id" }] }Replace
region,account-id, andkey-idwith your specific KMS key details. If using the AWS-managed S3 key (whensse_kms_key_idis not specified), permissions are managed automatically.</details> </blockquote></details> </blockquote></details>🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
pipeline/outputs/s3.md (1)
579-617: Consider adding examples for SSE-S3 and DSSE-KMS.The example demonstrates SSE-KMS effectively, but users may also need guidance on:
- SSE-S3 (simpler, no KMS key required): Just set
sse: AES256- DSSE-KMS (dual-layer encryption): Use
sse: aws:kms:dssewith a KMS key ARNAdding brief examples of these variants would provide more complete documentation coverage.
📝 Suggested additional examples
Add after line 617:
An example using SSE-S3 encryption (S3-managed keys): {% tabs %} {% tab title="fluent-bit.yaml" %} ```yaml pipeline: outputs: - name: s3 match: '*' bucket: your-bucket region: us-east-1 sse: AES256{% endtab %}
{% tab title="fluent-bit.conf" %}[OUTPUT] Name s3 Match * bucket your-bucket region us-east-1 sse AES256{% endtab %}
{% endtabs %}</details> </blockquote></details> </blockquote></details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit for review status -->
|
@GabrielYamin I do agree with Vale in some of the comments that it is a bit acronym/initialism heavy so useful to introduce the acronym/initialism. Can you check and resolve any comments raised by CI? |
|
@patrick-stephens Do you think that if I introduce the acronyms in the SSE config definition it would suffice for the key_id config? or should I introduce them in both? |
|
Yeah I'd just introduce it somewhere at the top or use the full name the first time it is present in the table/text - whilst I agree most folks should be aware I would still err on the side of caution. You don't need to define the term but at least clarify what the acronym/initialism stands for. It's also pretty easy to get different definitions sometimes for the same 3 letters so being explicit never hurts. I'm not sure if there are conflicting definitions in this case but you can never know all possible usage now and in the future - it doesn't take much effort to be clear and resolves any potential issue (even if there are none!). If anything is already covered as well but CI is flagging it then just make a comment to that effect and resolve it. |
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Yamin <[email protected]>
|
I have updated the descriptions, let me know if it's good now or you want me to adjust it a bit more. |
Summary by CodeRabbit
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.