[openstack-dev] [keystone] multiple federated keystones with single Identity Provider

Lance Bragstad lbragstad at gmail.com
Thu Dec 7 22:47:14 UTC 2017

On 12/07/2017 12:27 PM, Colleen Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy
> <pshchelokovskyy at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> We have a following use case - several independent keystones (say KeyA and
>> KeyB), using fernet tokens and synchronized fernet keys, and single external
>> IdP for federated auth.
>> Is it generally possible to configure both KeyA and KeyB such that scoped
>> token issued by KeyA for a federated user is valid on KeyB?
>> Currently we have the next problem - although domains/projects where
>> keystone's mapping engine assigns federated users are equal by name between
>> KeyA and KeyB, the UUIDs of projects/domains in KeyA and KeyB  are
>> different, which seems to invalidate the scoped token issued by KeyA when
>> trying to use it for KeyB. And it is not possible to create projects/domains
>> with specific UUIDs via keystone API (which would probably solve this
>> problem for non-autoprovisioned projects).
>> Is such usage scenario supported? Or one should always use the unscoped
>> token first to list projects/domains available on a specific keystone
>> instance and then get a scoped token for usage o this instance only?
> No, it is not currently possible to use the same token on projects in
> different keystones, for the reasons you gave. You might be interested
> in following https://review.openstack.org/#/c/323499/ if you're not
> already aware of it, which has the goal of solving that problem.
> It's also been brought up before:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/403866/
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-December/108466.html
> And we talked about it a lot at the last Forum (sorry my brief summary
> does not really do the discussion justice):
> http://www.gazlene.net/sydney-summit.html#keystone-operator-and-user-feedback
I had a snippet about it in my recap under the "Other Feedback" section
[0]. The TL;DR in my opinion is that we originally thought we could
solve the problem with federation 100%, and if we couldn't we wanted to
try and improve the parts of federation that would make that possible.

The interesting bit we came up with during the feedback session in
Sydney is what happens if a user no longer has a role on a project. For

- A user has a role on Project A and in the us-east region and the
us-west region, each region has it's own keystone deployment, but let's
assume the ID for Project A are the same in each region
- A user authenticates for a token scoped to Project A and starts
creating instances in both regions
- The user has their role from Project A removed in us-east, but not in
- The user isn't able to do anything within us-east since they no longer
have a role assignment on Project A in that region, but they can still
take the invalid token from the us-east region and effectively use it in
the us-west region

Without replicating revocation events, or syncing the assignment table,
this will lead to security concerns.
> Lance mentioned today that we'd likely try to discuss it at our next
> weekly meeting: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#Keystone_Team_Meeting
Yep, I have it on the agenda for the next meeting [1].

[0] https://www.lbragstad.com/blog/openstack-summit-sydney-recap
[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/keystone-weekly-meeting
> Colleen
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20171207/9fd1b7e1/attachment.sig>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list