From 485cf6bb23e8f4bee7a4617ad235dbd9b6f7f69c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Qiming Teng <tengqm@outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:00:16 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] [zh] Translate the migrating from PSP page

---
 .../migrate-from-psp.md                       | 669 ++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 622 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)

diff --git a/content/zh/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/migrate-from-psp.md b/content/zh/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/migrate-from-psp.md
index db9141bd13..9c0715c99f 100644
--- a/content/zh/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/migrate-from-psp.md
+++ b/content/zh/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/migrate-from-psp.md
@@ -33,61 +33,636 @@ admission controller. This can be done effectively using a combination of dry-ru
 -->
 - 确保 `PodSecurity` [特性门控](/docs/reference/command-line-tools-reference/feature-gates/)被启用。
 
+<!--
+This page assumes you are already familiar with the basic [Pod Security Admission](/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-admission/)
+concepts.
+-->
+本页面假定你已经熟悉 [Pod 安全性准入](/zh/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-admission/)的基本概念。
+
 <!-- body -->
 
 <!--
-## Steps
+## Overall approach
+
+There are multiple strategies you can take for migrating from PodSecurityPolicy to Pod Security
+Admission. The following steps are one possible migration path, with a goal of minimizing both the
+risks of a production outage and of a security gap.
 -->
-## 步骤    {#steps}
+## 方法概览    {#overall-approach}
+
+你可以采取多种策略来完成从 PodSecurityPolicy 到 Pod 安全性准入
+（Pod Security Admission）的迁移。
+下面是一种可能的迁移路径，其目标是尽可能降低生产环境不可用的风险，
+以及安全性仍然不足的风险。
+
+<!-- Keep section header numbering in sync with this list. -->
+<!--
+0. Decide whether Pod Security Admission is the right fit for your use case.
+1. Review namespace permissions
+2. Simplify & standardize PodSecurityPolicies
+3. Update namespaces
+   1. Identify an appropriate Pod Security level
+   2. Verify the Pod Security level
+   3. Enforce the Pod Security level
+   4. Bypass PodSecurityPolicy
+4. Review namespace creation processes
+5. Disable PodSecurityPolicy
+-->
+0. 确定 Pod 安全性准入是否对于你的使用场景而言比较合适。
+1. 审查名字空间访问权限。
+2. 简化、标准化 PodSecurityPolicy。
+3. 更新名字空间：
+   1. 确定合适的 Pod 安全性级别；
+   2. 验证该 Pod 安全性级别可工作；
+   3. 实施该 Pod 安全性级别；
+   4. 绕过 PodSecurityPolicy。
+4. 审阅名字空间创建过程。
+5. 禁用 PodSecurityPolicy。
 
 <!--
-- **Eliminate mutating PodSecurityPolicies, if your cluster has any set up.**
-  - Clone all mutating PSPs into a non-mutating version.
-  - Update all ClusterRoles authorizing use of those mutating PSPs to also authorize use of the
-    non-mutating variant.
-  - Watch for Pods using the mutating PSPs and work with code owners to migrate to valid,
-    non-mutating resources.
-  - Delete mutating PSPs.
+## 0. Decide whether Pod Security Admission is right for you {#is-psa-right-for-you}
 -->
--- **如果你的集群中配置了变更式的 PodSecurityPolicy，将它们删除。**
-   - 复制所有变更式 PSP 复制到非变更式版本中。
-   - 更新所有授权使用那些变更式 PSP 的 ClusterRole，使之也能为非变更式版本鉴权。
-   - 检视使用了变更式 PSP 的 Pod，与拥有该代码的人一起将其迁移到合法的、非变更式的资源。
-   - 删除变更式 PSP。
+## 0. 确定是否 Pod 安全性准入适合你  {#is-psa-right-for-you}
 
 <!--
-- **Select a compatible policy level for each namespace.** Analyze existing resources in the
-  namespace to drive this decision.
-  - Review the requirements of the different [Pod Security Standards](/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-standards).
-  - Evaluate the difference in privileges that would come from disabling the PSP controller.
-  - In the event that a PodSecurityPolicy falls between two levels, consider:
-    - Selecting a _less_ permissive PodSecurity level prioritizes security, and may require adjusting
-      workloads to fit within the stricter policy.
-    - Selecting a _more_ permissive PodSecurity level prioritizes avoiding disrupting or
-      changing workloads, but may allow workload authors in the namespace greater permissions
-      than desired.
+Pod Security Admission was designed to meet the most common security needs out of the box, and to
+provide a standard set of security levels across clusters. However, it is less flexible than
+PodSecurityPolicy. Notably, the following features are supported by PodSecurityPolicy but not Pod
+Security Admission:
 -->
-- **为每个名字空间选择一个兼容的策略级别。**
-  要分析名字空间中已有的资源才能作出此决定。
-  - 审阅不同 [Pod 安全标准](/zh/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-standards)的需求。
-  - 评估禁用 PSP 控制器所带来的特权级变化。
-  - 当 PodSecurityPolicy 中的设置介于两种策略级别之间时，考虑：
-    - 选择一个安全许可*略弱*的 PodSecurity 级别，可能需要调整负载本身，
-      使之能够在较严格的策略下工作。
-    - 选择一个安全许可*略强*的 PodSecurity 级别，从而避免干扰或变更负载本身。
-      不过这样做可能会让负载的作者在名字空间中拥有超出预期的权限。
-<!--
-- **Apply the selected profiles in `warn` and `audit` mode.** This will give you an idea of how
-  your Pods will respond to the new policies, without breaking existing workloads. Iterate on your
-  [Pods' configuration](/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-admission#configuring-pods) until
-  they are in compliance with the selected profiles.
-- Apply the profiles in `enforce` mode.
-- Stop including `PodSecurityPolicy` in the `--enable-admission-plugins` flag.
--->
-- **在 `warn` 和 `audit` 模式下应用所选的策略。**
-  这样做会让你了解 Pod 会如何对新的策略作出反应，同时不会破坏现有负载。
-  反复调试你的[Pod 配置](/zh/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-admission#configuring-pods)
-  直到它们与所选的策略匹配。
-- 用 `enforce` 模式下应用策略。
-- 在 `--enable-admission-plugins` 标志中去除 `PodSecurityPolicy`。
+Pod 安全性准入被设计用来直接满足最常见的安全性需求，并提供一组可用于多个集群的安全性级别。
+不过，这一机制比 PodSecurityPolicy 的灵活度要低。
+值得注意的是，PodSecurityPolicy 所支持的以下特性是 Pod 安全性准入所不支持的：
+
+<!--
+- **Setting default security constraints** - Pod Security Admission is a non-mutating admission
+  controller, meaning it won't modify pods before validating them. If you were relying on this
+  aspect of PSP, you will need to either modify your workloads to meet the Pod Security constraints,
+  or use a [Mutating Admission Webhook](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/extensible-admission-controllers/)
+  to make those changes. See [Simplify & Standardize PodSecurityPolicies](#simplify-psps) below for more detail.
+-->
+- **设置默认的安全性约束** - Pod 安全性准入是一个非变更性质的准入控制器，
+  这就意味着它不会在对 Pod 进行合法性检查之前更改其配置。如果你之前依赖于 PSP 的这方面能力，
+  你或者需要更改你的负载以满足 Pod 安全性约束，或者需要使用一个
+  [变更性质的准入 Webhook](/zh/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/extensible-admission-controllers/)
+  来执行相应的变更。进一步的细节可参见后文的[简化和标准化 PodSecurityPolicy](#simplify-psps)。
+<!--
+- **Fine-grained control over policy definition** - Pod Security Admission only supports
+  [3 standard levels](/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-standards/).
+  If you require more control over specific constraints, then you will need to use a
+  [Validating Admission Webhook](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/extensible-admission-controllers/)
+  to enforce those policies.
+-->
+- **对策略定义的细粒度控制** - Pod 安全性准入仅支持
+  [三种标准级别](/zh/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-standards/)。
+  如果你需要对特定的约束施加更多的控制，你就需要使用一个
+  [验证性质的准入 Webhook](/zh/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/extensible-admission-controllers/)
+  以实施这列策略。
+<!--
+- **Sub-namespace policy granularity** - PodSecurityPolicy lets you bind different policies to
+  different Service Accounts or users, even within a single namespace. This approach has many
+  pitfalls and is not recommended, but if you require this feature anyway you will
+  need to use a 3rd party webhook instead. The exception to this is if you only need to completely exempt
+  specific users or [RuntimeClasses](/docs/concepts/containers/runtime-class/), in which case Pod
+  Security Admission does expose some
+  [static configuration for exemptions](/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-admission/#exemptions).
+-->
+- **粒度小于名字空间的策略** - PodSecurityPolicy 允许你为不同的服务账户或用户绑定不同策略，
+  即使这些服务账户或用户隶属于同一个名字空间。这一方法有很多缺陷，不建议使用。
+  不过如果你的确需要这种功能，你就需要使用第三方的 Webhook。
+  唯一的例外是当你只需要完全针对某用户或者
+  [RuntimeClasses](/zh/docs/concepts/containers/runtime-class/) 赋予豁免规则时，
+  Pod 安全性准入的确也为豁免规则暴露一些
+  [静态配置](/zh/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-admission/#exemptions)。
+
+<!--
+Even if Pod Security Admission does not meet all of your needs it was designed to be _complementary_
+to other policy enforcement mechanisms, and can provide a useful fallback running alongside other
+admission webhooks.
+-->
+即便 Pod 安全性准入无法满足你的所有需求，该机制也是设计用作其他策略实施机制的
+_补充_，因此可以和其他准入 Webhook 一起运行，进而提供一种有用的兜底机制。
+
+<!--
+## 1. Review namespace permissions {#review-namespace-permissions}
+-->
+## 1. 审查名字空间访问权限  {#review-namespace-permissions}
+
+<!--
+Pod Security Admission is controlled by [labels on
+namespaces](/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-admission/#pod-security-admission-labels-for-namespaces).
+This means that anyone who can update (or patch or create) a namespace can also modify the Pod
+Security level for that namespace, which could be used to bypass a more restrictive policy. Before
+proceeding, ensure that only trusted, privileged users have these namespace permissions. It is not
+recommended to grant these powerful permissions to users that shouldn't have elevated permissions,
+but if you must you will need to use an
+[admission webhook](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/extensible-admission-controllers/)
+to place additional restrictions on setting Pod Security labels on Namespace objects.
+-->
+Pod 安全性准入是通过[名字空间上的标签](/zh/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-admission/#pod-security-admission-labels-for-namespaces)
+来控制的。这也就是说，任何能够更新（或通过 patch 部分更新或创建）
+名字空间的人都可以更改该名字空间的 Pod 安全性级别，而这可能会被利用来绕过约束性更强的策略。
+在继续执行迁移操作之前，请确保只有被信任的、有特权的用户具有这类名字空间访问权限。
+不建议将这类强大的访问权限授予不应获得权限提升的用户，不过如果你必须这样做，
+你需要使用一个
+[准入 Webhook](/zh/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/extensible-admission-controllers/)
+来针对为 Namespace 对象设置 Pod 安全性级别设置额外的约束。
+
+<!--
+## 2. Simplify & standardize PodSecurityPolicies {#simplify-psps}
+-->
+## 2. 简化、标准化 PodSecurityPolicy    {#simplify-psps}
+
+<!--
+In this section, you will reduce mutating PodSecurityPolicies and remove options that are outside
+the scope of the Pod Security Standards. You should make the changes recommended here to an offline
+copy of the original PodSecurityPolicy being modified. The cloned PSP should have a different
+name that is alphabetically before the original (for example, prepend a `0` to it). Do not create the
+new policies in Kubernetes yet - that will be covered in the [Rollout the updated
+policies](#psp-update-rollout) section below.
+-->
+在本节中，你会削减变更性质的 PodSecurityPolicy，去掉 Pod 安全性标准范畴之外的选项。
+针对要修改的、已存在的 PodSecurityPolicy，你应该将这里所建议的更改写入到其离线副本中。
+所克隆的 PSP 应该与原来的副本名字不同，并且按字母序要排到原副本之前
+（例如，可以向 PSP 名字前加一个 `0`）。
+先不要在 Kubernetes 中创建新的策略 - 这类操作会在后文的[推出更新的策略](#psp-update-rollout)
+部分讨论。
+
+<!--
+### 2.a. Eliminate purely mutating fields {#eliminate-mutating-fields}
+-->
+### 2.a. 去掉纯粹变更性质的字段    {#eliminating-mutaging-fields}
+
+<!--
+If a PodSecurityPolicy is mutating pods, then you could end up with pods that don't meet the Pod
+Security level requirements when you finally turn PodSecurityPolicy off. In order to avoid this, you
+should eliminate all PSP mutation prior to switching over. Unfortunately PSP does not cleanly
+separate mutating & validating fields, so this is not a straightforward migration.
+-->
+如果某个 PodSecurityPolicy 能够变更字段，你可能会在关掉 PodSecurityPolicy
+时发现有些 Pod 无法满足 Pod 安全性级别。为避免这类状况，
+你应该在执行切换操作之前去掉所有 PSP 的变更操作。
+不幸的是，PSP 没有对变更性和验证性字段做清晰的区分，所以这一迁移操作也不够简单直接。
+
+<!--
+You can start by eliminating the fields that are purely mutating, and don't have any bearing on the
+validating policy. These fields (also listed in the
+[Mapping PodSecurityPolicies to Pod Security Standards](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/psp-to-pod-security-standards/)
+reference) are:
+-->
+你可以先去掉那些纯粹变更性质的字段，留下验证策略中的其他内容。
+这些字段（也列举于[将 PodSecurityPolicy 映射到 Pod 安全性标准](/zh/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/psp-to-pod-security-standards/)参考中）
+包括：
+
+<!--
+- `.spec.defaultAllowPrivilegeEscalation`
+- `.spec.runtimeClass.defaultRuntimeClassName`
+- `.metadata.annotations['seccomp.security.alpha.kubernetes.io/defaultProfileName']`
+- `.metadata.annotations['apparmor.security.beta.kubernetes.io/defaultProfileName']`
+- `.spec.defaultAddCapabilities` - Although technically a mutating & validating field, these should
+  be merged into `.spec.allowedCapabilities` which performs the same validation without mutation.
+-->
+- `.spec.defaultAllowPrivilegeEscalation`
+- `.spec.runtimeClass.defaultRuntimeClassName`
+- `.metadata.annotations['seccomp.security.alpha.kubernetes.io/defaultProfileName']`
+- `.metadata.annotations['apparmor.security.beta.kubernetes.io/defaultProfileName']`
+- `.spec.defaultAddCapabilities` - 尽管理论上是一个混合了变更性与验证性功能的字段，
+  这里的设置应该被合并到 `.spec.allowedCapabilities` 中，后者会执行相同的验证操作，
+  但不会执行任何变更动作。
+
+{{< caution >}}
+<!--
+Removing these could result in workloads missing required configuration, and cause problems. See
+[Rollout the updated policies](#psp-update-rollout) below for advice on how to roll these changes
+out safely.
+-->
+删除这些字段可能导致负载缺少所需的配置信息，进而导致一些问题。
+参见后文[退出更新的策略](#psp-update-rollout)以获得如何安全地将这些变更上线的建议。
+{{< /caution >}}
+
+<!--
+### 2.b. Eliminate options not covered by the Pod Security Standards {#eliminate-non-standard-options}
+-->
+### 2.b. 去掉 Pod 安全性标准未涉及的选项 {#eliminate-non-standard-options}
+
+<!--
+There are several fields in PodSecurityPolicy that are not covered by the Pod Security Standards. If
+you must enforce these options, you will need to supplement Pod Security Admission with an
+[admission webhook](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/extensible-admission-controllers/),
+which is outside the scope of this guide.
+-->
+PodSecurityPolicy 中有一些字段未被 Pod 安全性准入机制覆盖。如果你必须使用这些选项，
+你需要在 Pod 安全性准入之外部署
+[准入 Webhook](/zh/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/extensible-admission-controllers/)
+以补充这一能力，而这类操作不在本指南范围。
+
+<!--
+First, you can remove the purely validating fields that the Pod Security Standards do not cover.
+These fields (also listed in the
+[Mapping PodSecurityPolicies to Pod Security Standards](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/psp-to-pod-security-standards/)
+reference with "no opinion") are:
+-->
+首先，你可以去掉 Pod 安全性标准所未覆盖的那些验证性字段。这些字段（也列举于
+[将 PodSecurityPolicy 映射到 Pod 安全性标准](/zh/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/psp-to-pod-security-standards/)参考中，标记为“无意见”）有：
+
+- `.spec.allowedHostPaths`
+- `.spec.allowedFlexVolumes`
+- `.spec.allowedCSIDrivers`
+- `.spec.forbiddenSysctls`
+- `.spec.runtimeClass`
+
+<!--
+You can also remove the following fields, that are related to POSIX / UNIX group controls.
+-->
+你也可以去掉以下字段，这些字段与 POSIX/UNIX 用户组控制有关。
+
+{{< caution >}}
+<!--
+If any of these use the `MustRunAs` strategy they may be mutating! Removing these could result in
+workloads not setting the required groups, and cause problems. See
+[Rollout the updated policies](#psp-update-rollout) below for advice on how to roll these changes
+out safely.
+-->
+如果这些字段中存在使用 `MustRunAs` 策略的情况，则意味着对应字段是变更性质的。
+去掉相应的字段可能导致负载无法设置所需的用户组，进而带来一些问题。
+关于如何安全地将这类变更上线的相关建议，请参阅后文的[推出更新的策略](#psp-update-rollout)部分。
+{{< /caution >}}
+
+- `.spec.runAsGroup`
+- `.spec.supplementalGroups`
+- `.spec.fsGroup`
+
+<!--
+The remaining mutating fields are required to properly support the Pod Security Standards, and will
+need to be handled on a case-by-case basis later:
+-->
+剩下的变更性字段是为了适当支持 Pod 安全性标准所需要的，因而需要逐个处理：
+
+<!--
+- `.spec.requiredDropCapabilities` - Required to drop `ALL` for the Restricted profile.
+- `.spec.seLinux` - (Only mutating with the `MustRunAs` rule) required to enforce the SELinux
+  requirements of the Baseline & Restricted profiles.
+- `.spec.runAsUser` - (Non-mutating with the `RunAsAny` rule) required to enforce `RunAsNonRoot` for
+  the Restricted profile.
+- `.spec.allowPrivilegeEscalation` - (Only mutating if set to `false`) required for the Restricted
+  profile.
+-->
+- `.spec.requiredDropCapabilities` - 需要此字段来为 Restricted 配置去掉 `ALL` 设置。 
+- `.spec.seLinux` - （仅针对带有 `MustRunAs` 规则的变更性设置）需要此字段来满足
+  Baseline 和 Restricted 配置所需要的 SELinux 需求。
+- `.spec.runAsUser` - （仅针对带有 `RunAsAny` 规则的非变更性设置）需要此字段来为
+  Restricted 配置保证 `RunAsNonRoot`。
+- `.spec.allowPrivilegeEscalation` - （如果设置为 `false` 则为变更性设置）
+  需要此字段来支持 Restricted 配置。
+
+<!--
+### 2.c. Rollout the updated PSPs {#psp-update-rollout}
+-->
+### 2.c. 推出更新的 PSP    {#psp-update-rollout}
+
+<!--
+Next, you can rollout the updated policies to your cluster. You should proceed with caution, as
+removing the mutating options may result in workloads missing required configuration.
+
+For each updated PodSecurityPolicy:
+-->
+接下来，你可以将更新后的策略推出到你的集群上。在继续操作时，你要非常小心，
+因为去掉变更性质的选项可能导致有些工作负载缺少必需的配置。
+
+针对更新后的每个 PodSecurityPolicy：
+
+<!--
+1. Identify pods running under the original PSP. This can be done using the `kubernetes.io/psp`
+   annotation. For example, using kubectl:
+   ```sh
+   PSP_NAME="original" # Set the name of the PSP you're checking for
+   kubectl get pods --all-namespaces -o jsonpath="{range .items[?(@.metadata.annotations.kubernetes\.io\/psp=='$PSP_NAME')]}{.metadata.namespace} {.metadata.name}{'\n'}{end}"
+   ```
+-->
+1. 识别运行于原 PSP 之下的 Pod。可以通过 `kubernetes.io/psp` 注解来完成。
+   例如，使用 kubectl：
+
+   ```shell
+   PSP_NAME="original" # 设置你要检查的 PSP 的名称
+   kubectl get pods --all-namespaces -o jsonpath="{range .items[?(@.metadata.annotations.kubernetes\.io\/psp=='$PSP_NAME')]}{.metadata.namespace} {.metadata.name}{'\n'}{end}"
+   ```
+
+<!--
+2. Compare these running pods against the original pod spec to determine whether PodSecurityPolicy
+   has modified the pod. For pods created by a [workload resource](/docs/concepts/workloads/controllers/)
+   you can compare the pod with the PodTemplate in the controller resource. If any changes are
+   identified, the original Pod or PodTemplate should be updated with the desired configuration.
+   The fields to review are:
+-->
+2. 比较运行中的 Pod 与原来的 Pod 规约，确定 PodSecurityPolicy 是否更改过这些 Pod。
+   对于通过[工作负载资源](/zh/docs/concepts/workloads/controllers/)所创建的 Pod，
+   你可以比较 Pod 和控制器资源中的 PodTemplate。如果发现任何变更，则原来的 Pod
+   或者 PodTemplate 需要被更新以加上所希望的配置。要审查的字段包括：
+
+   - `.metadata.annotations['container.apparmor.security.beta.kubernetes.io/*']`
+     （将 `*` 替换为每个容器的名称）
+   - `.spec.runtimeClassName`
+   - `.spec.securityContext.fsGroup`
+   - `.spec.securityContext.seccompProfile`
+   - `.spec.securityContext.seLinuxOptions`
+   - `.spec.securityContext.supplementalGroups`
+   <!--
+   - On containers, under `.spec.containers[*]` and `.spec.initContainers[*]`:
+   -->
+   - 对于容器，在 `.spec.containers[*]` 和 `.spec.initContainers[*]` 之下，检查下面字段：
+     - `.securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation`
+     - `.securityContext.capabilities.add`
+     - `.securityContext.capabilities.drop`
+     - `.securityContext.readOnlyRootFilesystem`
+     - `.securityContext.runAsGroup`
+     - `.securityContext.runAsNonRoot`
+     - `.securityContext.runAsUser`
+     - `.securityContext.seccompProfile`
+     - `.securityContext.seLinuxOptions`
+<!--
+3. Create the new PodSecurityPolicies. If any Roles or ClusterRoles are granting `use` on all PSPs
+   this could cause the new PSPs to be used instead of their mutating counter-parts.
+4. Update your authorization to grant access to the new PSPs. In RBAC this means updating any Roles
+   or ClusterRoles that grant the `use` permision on the original PSP to also grant it to the
+   updated PSP.
+-->
+3. 创建新的 PodSecurityPolicy。如果存在 Role 或 ClusterRole 对象为用户授权了在所有 PSP
+   上使用 `use` 动词的权限，则所使用的的会是新创建的 PSP 而不是其变更性的副本。
+4. 更新你的鉴权配置，为访问新的 PSP 授权。在 RBAC 机制下，这意味着需要更新所有为原 PSP
+   授予 `use` 访问权限的 Role 或 ClusterRole 对象，使之也对更新后的 PSP 授权。
+
+<!--
+5. Verify: after some soak time, rerun the command from step 1 to see if any pods are still using
+   the original PSPs. Note that pods need to be recreated after the new policies have been rolled
+   out before they can be fully verified.
+6. (optional) Once you have verified that the original PSPs are no longer in use, you can delete
+   them.
+-->
+5. 验证：经过一段时间后，重新执行步骤 1 中所给的命令，查看是否有 Pod 仍在使用原来的 PSP。
+   注意，在新的策略被推出到集群之后，Pod 需要被重新创建才可以执行全面验证。
+6. （可选）一旦你已经验证原来的 PSP 不再被使用，你就可以删除这些 PSP。
+
+<!--
+## 3. Update Namespaces {#update-namespaces}
+-->
+## 3. 更新名字空间     {#update-namespace}
+
+<!--
+The following steps will need to be performed on every namespace in the cluster. Commands referenced
+in these steps use the `$NAMESPACE` variable to refer to the namespace being updated.
+-->
+下面的步骤需要在集群中的所有名字空间上执行。所列步骤中的命令使用变量
+`$NAMESPACE` 来引用所更新的名字空间。
+
+<!--
+### 3.a. Identify an appropriate Pod Security level {#identify-appropriate-level}
+-->
+### 3.a. 识别合适的 Pod 安全级别   {#identify-appropriate-level}
+
+<!--
+Start reviewing the [Pod Security Standards](/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-standards/) and
+familiarizing yourself with the 3 different levels.
+
+There are several ways to choose a Pod Security level for your namespace:
+-->
+首先请回顾 [Pod 安全性标准](/zh/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-standards/)内容，
+并了解三个安全级别。
+
+为你的名字空间选择 Pod 安全性级别有几种方法：
+
+<!--
+1. **By security requirements for the namespace** - If you are familiar with the expected access
+   level for the namespace, you can choose an appropriate level based on those requirements, similar
+   to how one might approach this on a new cluster.
+-->
+1. **根据名字空间的安全性需求来确定** - 如果你熟悉某名字空间的预期访问级别，
+   你可以根据这类需求来选择合适的安全级别，就像大家在为新集群确定安全级别一样。
+<!--
+2. **By existing PodSecurityPolicies** - Using the
+   [Mapping PodSecurityPolicies to Pod Security Standards](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/psp-to-pod-security-standards/)
+   reference you can map each
+   PSP to a Pod Security Standard level. If your PSPs aren't based on the Pod Security Standards, you
+   may need to decide between choosing a level that is at least as permissive as the PSP, and a
+   level that is at least as restrictive. You can see which PSPs are in use for pods in a given
+   namespace with this command:
+-->
+2. **根据现有的 PodSecurityPolicy 来确定** - 基于
+   [将 PodSecurityPolicy 映射到 Pod 安全性标准](/zh/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/psp-to-pod-security-standards/)
+   参考资料，你可以将各个 PSP 映射到某个 Pod 安全性标准级别。如果你的 PSP 不是基于
+   Pod 安全性标准的，你可能或者需要选择一个至少与该 PSP 一样宽松的级别，
+   或者选择一个至少与其一样严格的级别。使用下面的命令你可以查看被 Pod 使用的 PSP 有哪些：
+
+   ```sh
+   kubectl get pods -n $NAMESPACE -o jsonpath="{.items[*].metadata.annotations.kubernetes\.io\/psp}" | tr " " "\n" | sort -u
+   ```
+<!--
+3. **By existing pods** - Using the strategies under [Verify the Pod Security level](#verify-pss-level),
+   you can test out both the Baseline and Restricted levels to see
+   whether they are sufficiently permissive for existing workloads, and chose the least-privileged
+   valid level.
+-->
+3. **根据现有 Pod 来确定** - 使用[检查 Pod 安全性级别](#verify-pss-level)小节所述策略，
+   你可以测试 Baseline 和 Restricted 级别，检查它们是否对于现有负载而言足够宽松，
+   并选择二者之间特权级较低的合法级别。
+
+{{< caution >}}
+<!--
+Options 2 & 3 above are based on _existing_ pods, and may miss workloads that aren't currently
+running, such as CronJobs, scale-to-zero workloads, or other workloads that haven't rolled out.
+-->
+上面的第二和第三种方案是基于 _现有_ Pod 的，因此可能错失那些当前未处于运行状态的
+Pod，例如 CronJobs、缩容到零的负载，或者其他尚未全面铺开的负载。
+{{< /caution >}}
+
+<!--
+### 3.b. Verify the Pod Security level {#verify-pss-level}
+-->
+### 3.b. 检查 Pod 安全性级别   {#verify-pss-level}
+
+<!--
+Once you have selected a Pod Security level for the namespace (or if you're trying several), it's a
+good idea to test it out first (you can skip this step if using the Privileged level). Pod Security
+includes several tools to help test and safely roll out profiles.
+-->
+一旦你已经为名字空间选择了 Pod 安全性级别（或者你正在尝试多个不同级别），
+先进行测试是个不错的主意（如果使用 Privileged 级别，则可略过此步骤）。
+Pod 安全性包含若干工具可用来测试和安全地推出安全性配置。
+
+<!--
+First, you can dry-run the policy, which will evaluate pods currently running in the namespace
+against the applied policy, without making the new policy take effect:
+-->
+首先，你可以试运行新策略，这个过程可以针对所应用的策略评估当前在名字空间中运行的
+Pod，但不会令新策略马上生效：
+
+```sh
+# $LEVEL 是要试运行的级别，可以是 "baseline" 或 "restricted"
+kubectl label --dry-run=server --overwrite ns $NAMESPACE pod-security.kubernetes.io/enforce=$LEVEL
+```
+
+<!--
+This command will return a warning for any _existing_ pods that are not valid under the proposed
+level.
+-->
+此命令会针对在所提议的级别下不再合法的所有 _现存_ Pod 返回警告信息。
+
+<!--
+The second option is better for catching workloads that are not currently running: audit mode. When
+running under audit-mode (as opposed to enforcing), pods that violate the policy level are recorded
+in the audit logs, which can be reviewed later after some soak time, but are not forbidden. Warning
+mode works similarly, but returns the warning to the user immediately. You can set the audit level
+on a namespace with this command:
+-->
+第二种办法在抓取当前未运行的负载方面表现的更好：audit 模式。
+运行于 audit 模式（而非 enforcing 模式）下时，违反策略级别的 Pod 会被记录到审计日志中，
+经过一段时间后可以在日志中查看到，但这些 Pod 不会被拒绝。
+warning 模式的工作方式与此类似，不过会立即向用户返回告警信息。
+你可以使用下面的命令为名字空间设置 audit 模式的级别：
+
+```sh
+kubectl label --overwrite ns $NAMESPACE pod-security.kubernetes.io/audit=$LEVEL
+```
+
+<!--
+If either of these approaches yield unexpected violations, you will need to either update the
+violating workloads to meet the policy requirements, or relax the namespace Pod Security level.
+-->
+当以上两种方法输出意料之外的违例状况时，你就需要或者更新发生违例的负载以满足策略需求，
+或者放宽名字空间上的 Pod 安全性级别。
+
+<!--
+### 3.c. Enforce the Pod Security level {#enforce-pod-security-level}
+-->
+### 3.c. 实施 Pod 安全性级别      {#enforce-pod-security-level}
+
+<!--
+When you are satisfied that the chosen level can safely be enforced on the namespace, you can update
+the namespace to enforce the desired level:
+-->
+当你对可以安全地在名字空间上实施的级别比较满意时，你可以更新名字空间来实施所期望的级别：
+
+```sh
+kubectl label --overwrite ns $NAMESPACE pod-security.kubernetes.io/enforce=$LEVEL
+```
+
+<!--
+### 3.d. Bypass PodSecurityPolicy {#bypass-psp}
+-->
+### 3.d. 绕过 PodSecurityPolicy {#bypass-psp}
+
+<!--
+Finally, you can effectively bypass PodSecurityPolicy at the namespace level by binding the fully
+{{< example file="policy/privileged-psp.yaml" >}}privileged PSP{{< /example >}} to all service
+accounts in the namespace.
+-->
+最后，你可以通过将
+{{< example file="policy/privileged-psp.yaml" >}}完全特权的 PSP{{< /example >}} 
+绑定到某名字空间中所有服务账户上，在名字空间层面绕过所有 PodSecurityPolicy。
+
+```sh
+# 下面集群范围的命令只需要执行一次
+kubectl apply -f privileged-psp.yaml
+kubectl create clusterrole privileged-psp --verb use --resource podsecuritypolicies.policy --resource-name privileged
+
+# 逐个名字空间地禁用
+kubectl create -n $NAMESPACE rolebinding disable-psp --clusterrole privileged-psp --group system:serviceaccounts:$NAMESPACE
+```
+
+<!--
+Since the privileged PSP is non-mutating, and the PSP admission controller always
+prefers non-mutating PSPs, this will ensure that pods in this namespace are no longer being modified
+or restricted by PodSecurityPolicy.
+-->
+由于特权 PSP 是非变更性的，PSP 准入控制器总是优选非变更性的 PSP，
+上面的操作会确保对应名字空间中的所有 Pod 不再会被 PodSecurityPolicy
+所更改或限制。
+
+<!--
+The advantage to disabling PodSecurityPolicy on a per-namespace basis like this is if a problem
+arises you can easily roll the change back by deleting the RoleBinding. Just make sure the
+pre-existing PodSecurityPolicies are still in place!
+-->
+按上述操作逐个名字空间地禁用 PodSecurityPolicy 这种做法的好处是，
+如果出现问题，你可以很方便地通过删除 RoleBinding 来回滚所作的更改。
+你所要做的只是确保之前存在的 PodSecurityPolicy 还在。
+
+```sh
+# 撤销 PodSecurityPolicy 的禁用
+kubectl delete -n $NAMESPACE rolebinding disable-psp
+```
+
+<!--
+## 4. Review namespace creation processes {#review-namespace-creation-process}
+-->
+## 4. 审阅名字空间创建过程  {#review-namespace-creation-process}  
+
+<!--
+Now that existing namespaces have been updated to enforce Pod Security Admission, you should ensure
+that your processes and/or policies for creating new namespaces are updated to ensure that an
+appropriate Pod Security profile is applied to new namespaces.
+-->
+现在，现有的名字空间都已被更新，强制实施 Pod 安全性准入，
+你应该确保你用来管控新名字空间创建的流程与/或策略也被更新，这样合适的 Pod
+安全性配置会被应用到新的名字空间上。
+
+<!--
+You can also statically configure the Pod Security admission controller to set a default enforce,
+audit, and/or warn level for unlabeled namespaces. See
+[Configure the Admission Controller](docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/enforce-standards-admission-controller/#configure-the-admission-controller)
+for more information.
+-->
+你也可以静态配置 Pod 安全性准入控制器，为尚未打标签的名字空间设置默认的
+enforce、audit 与/或 warn 级别。详细信息可参阅
+[配置准入控制器](/zh/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/enforce-standards-admission-controller/#configure-the-admission-controller)
+页面。
+
+<!--
+## 5. Disable PodSecurityPolicy {#disable-psp}
+-->
+## 5. 禁用 PodSecurityPolicy    {#disable-psp}
+
+<!--
+Finally, you're ready to disable PodSecurityPolicy. To do so, you will need to modify the admission
+configuration of the API server:
+[How do I turn off an admission controller?](/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/admission-controllers/#how-do-i-turn-off-an-admission-controller).
+-->
+最后，你已为禁用 PodSecurityPolicy 做好准备。要禁用 PodSecurityPolicy，
+你需要更改 API 服务器上的准入配置：
+[我如何关闭某个准入控制器？](/zh/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/admission-controllers/#how-do-i-turn-off-an-admission-controller)
+
+<!--
+To verify that the PodSecurityPolicy admission controller is no longer enabled, you can manually run
+a test by impersonating a user without access to any PodSecurityPolicies (see the
+[PodSecurityPolicy example](/docs/concepts/policy/pod-security-policy/#example)), or by verifying in
+the API server logs. At startup, the API server outputs log lines listing the loaded admission
+controller plugins:
+-->
+如果需要验证 PodSecurityPolicy 准入控制器不再被启用，你可以通过扮演某个无法访问任何
+PodSecurityPolicy 的用户来执行测试（参见
+[PodSecurityPolicy 示例](/zh/docs/concepts/policy/pod-security-policy/#example)），
+或者通过检查 API 服务器的日志来进行验证。在启动期间，API
+服务器会输出日志行，列举所挂载的准入控制器插件。
+
+```
+I0218 00:59:44.903329      13 plugins.go:158] Loaded 16 mutating admission controller(s) successfully in the following order: NamespaceLifecycle,LimitRanger,ServiceAccount,NodeRestriction,TaintNodesByCondition,Priority,DefaultTolerationSeconds,ExtendedResourceToleration,PersistentVolumeLabel,DefaultStorageClass,StorageObjectInUseProtection,RuntimeClass,DefaultIngressClass,MutatingAdmissionWebhook.
+I0218 00:59:44.903350      13 plugins.go:161] Loaded 14 validating admission controller(s) successfully in the following order: LimitRanger,ServiceAccount,PodSecurity,Priority,PersistentVolumeClaimResize,RuntimeClass,CertificateApproval,CertificateSigning,CertificateSubjectRestriction,DenyServiceExternalIPs,ValidatingAdmissionWebhook,ResourceQuota.
+```
+
+<!--
+You should see `PodSecurity` (in the validating admission controllers), and neither list should
+contain `PodSecurityPolicy`.
+-->
+你应该会看到 `PodSecurity`（在 validating admission controllers 列表中），
+并且两个列表中都不应该包含 `PodSecurityPolicy`。
+
+<!--
+Once you are certain the PSP admission controller is disabled (and after sufficient soak time to be
+confident you won't need to roll back), you are free to delete your PodSecurityPolicies and any
+associated Roles, ClusterRoles, RoleBindings and ClusterRoleBindings (just make sure they don't
+grant any other unrelated permissions).
+-->
+一旦你确定 PSP 准入控制器已被禁用（并且这种状况已经持续了一段时间，
+这样你才会比较确定不需要回滚），你就可以放心地删除你的 PodSecurityPolicy
+以及所关联的所有 Role、ClusterRole、RoleBinding、ClusterRoleBinding 等对象
+（仅需要确保他们不再授予其他不相关的访问权限）。