[openstack-dev] [Neutron] FWaaS: Support for explicit commit
sumitnaiksatam at gmail.com
Mon Aug 12 19:23:35 UTC 2013
I seemed to have missed this email from you earlier. As compared to
existing Neutron resources, the FWaaS Firewall resource and workflow
is slightly different, since it's a two step process. The rules/policy
creation is decoupled (for audit reasons) from its application on the
backend firewall. Hence the need for the commit-like operation which
expresses the intent that the state of the rules/policy be applied to
the backend firewall. We can provide capabilities for bulk
creation/update of rules/policies as well but that I believe is
independent of this.
I posted a patch yesterday night for this
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Aaron Rosen <arosen at nicira.com> wrote:
> Hi Sumit,
> Neutron has a concept of a bulk creation where multiple things can be
> created in one api request rather that N (and then be implemented atomically
> on the backend). In my opinion, I think it would be better to implement a
> bulk update/delete operation rather than a commit. I think that having
> something like this that is generic could be useful to other api's in
> I do agree that one has to keep track of the order they are
> changing/adding/delete rules so that they don't allow two things to
> communicate that shouldn't be allowed to. If someone wanted to perform this
> type of bulk atomic change now could they create a new profile with the
> rules they desire and then switch out which profile is attached to the
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Sumit Naiksatam <sumitnaiksatam at gmail.com>
>> We had some discussion on this during the Neutron IRC meeting, and per
>> that discussion I have created a blueprint for this:
>> Further comments can be posted on the blueprint whiteboard and/or the
>> design spec doc.
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
>> <sumitnaiksatam at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> > In Neutron Firewall as a Service (FWaaS), we currently support an
>> > implicit commit mode, wherein a change made to a firewall_rule is
>> > propagated immediately to all the firewalls that use this rule (via
>> > the firewall_policy association), and the rule gets applied in the
>> > backend firewalls. This might be acceptable, however this is different
>> > from the explicit commit semantics which most firewalls support.
>> > Having an explicit commit operation ensures that multiple rules can be
>> > applied atomically, as opposed to in the implicit case where each rule
>> > is applied atomically and thus opens up the possibility of security
>> > holes between two successive rule applications.
>> > So the proposal here is quite simple -
>> > * When any changes are made to the firewall_rules
>> > (added/deleted/updated), no changes will happen on the firewall (only
>> > the corresponding firewall_rule resources are modified).
>> > * We will support an explicit commit operation on the firewall
>> > resource. Any changes made to the rules since the last commit will now
>> > be applied to the firewall when this commit operation is invoked.
>> > * A show operation on the firewall will show a list of the currently
>> > committed rules, and also the pending changes.
>> > Kindly respond if you have any comments on this.
>> > Thanks,
>> > ~Sumit.
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
More information about the OpenStack-dev