<div dir="ltr">From a security point, it certainly scares the hell out of me</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 7 April 2015 at 08:45, Chris Friesen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chris.friesen@windriver.com" target="_blank">chris.friesen@windriver.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 04/06/2015 10:08 PM, Angus Salkeld wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Chris Friesen <<a href="mailto:chris.friesen@windriver.com" target="_blank">chris.friesen@windriver.com</a><br></span><div><div class="h5">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:chris.friesen@windriver.com" target="_blank">chris.friesen@<u></u>windriver.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
On 04/06/2015 08:55 PM, Angus Salkeld wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi all<br>
<br>
For quite some time we (Heat team) have wanted to be able to send<br>
messages to our<br>
users (by user I do not mean the Operator, but the User that is<br>
interacting with<br>
the client).<br>
<br>
What do I mean by "user messages", and how do they differ from our<br>
current log<br>
messages and notifications?<br>
- Our current logs are for the operator and have information that the user<br>
should not have<br>
(ip addresses, hostnames, configuration options, other tenant info<br>
etc..)<br>
- Our notifications (that Ceilometer uses) *could* be used, but I am not<br>
sure if<br>
it quite fits.<br>
(they seem a bit heavy weight for a log message and aimed at higher<br>
level events)<br>
<br>
<br>
<snip><br>
<br>
What are some options we could investigate:<br>
1. remote syslog<br>
2. Zaqar<br>
3. Other options:<br>
Please chip in with suggestions/links!<br>
<br>
<br>
What about a per-user notification topic using the existing notification<br>
backend?<br>
<br>
<br>
Wouldn't that require the Operator to provide the end user with access to the<br>
message bus?<br>
Seems scary to me.<br>
</div></div></blockquote>
<br>
AMQP supports access controls, so is it really all that scary? Maybe set up a virtual host per user if we want to be paranoid? (Just throwing it out there as an option since we're already using it...)<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>______________________________<u></u>______________<br>
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.<u></u>openstack.org?subject:<u></u>unsubscribe</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<u></u>openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Duncan Thomas</div>
</div>