<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/16/2016 02:19 AM, Jamie Lennox
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAP=72hqU1+v5tgwLZpgVY5xP3eNJykZbfhef44dZApfm3L5pw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Thanks everyone for your input. <br>
<br>
</div>
I generally agree that there is something that
doesn't quite feel right about purely trusting this
information to be passed from service to service,
this is why i was keen for outside input and I have
been rethinking the approach. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
They really feel like a variation on Trust tokens.<br>
<br>
From the service perspective, they are tokens, just not the one the
user originally requested.<br>
<br>
The "reservation" as I see it is an implicit trust created by the
user requesting the operation on the initial service.<br>
<br>
When the service validates the token, it can get back the, lets
call it a "reserved token" in keeping with the term reservation
above. That token will have a longer life span than the one the
user originally requested, but (likely) fewer roles. <br>
<br>
When nova calls glance, and then glance calls Swift, we can again
transition to different reserved tokens if needs be.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAP=72hqU1+v5tgwLZpgVY5xP3eNJykZbfhef44dZApfm3L5pw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
To this end i've proposed reservations (a name that
doesn't feel right): <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330329/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330329/</a><br>
<br>
</div>
At a gut feeling level i'm much happier with the
concept. I think it will allow us to handle the
distinction between user->service and
service->service communication much better and has
the added bonus of potentially opening up some policy
options in future. <br>
<br>
</div>
Please let me know of any concerns/thoughts on the new
approach.<br>
<br>
</div>
Once again i've only written the proposal part of the spec
as there will be a lot of details to figure out if we go
forward. It is also fairly rough but it should convey the
point. <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
Thanks <br>
<br>
</div>
Jamie<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 3 June 2016 at 03:06, Shawn McKinney
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:smckinney@symas.com" target="_blank">smckinney@symas.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=""><br>
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:58 AM, Adam Young <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ayoung@redhat.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ayoung@redhat.com">ayoung@redhat.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Any senseible RBAC setup would support this, but we
are not using a sensible one, we are using a hand rolled
one. Replacing everything with Fortress implies a complete
rewrite of what we do now. Nuke it from orbit type stuff.<br>
><br>
> What I would rather focus on is the splitting of the
current policy into two parts:<br>
><br>
> 1. Scope check done in code<br>
> 2. Role check done in middleware<br>
><br>
> Role check should be donebased on URL, not on the
policy key like identity:create_user<br>
><br>
><br>
> Then, yes, a Fortress style query could be done, or
it could be done by asking the service itself.<br>
<br>
</span>Mostly in agreement. I prefer to focus on the model
(RBAC) rather than a specific impl like Fortress. That is to
say support the model and allow the impl to remain
pluggable. That way you enable many vendors to participate
in your ecosystem and more important, one isn’t tied to a
specific backend (ldapv3, sql, …)<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">__________________________________________________________________________<br>
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
questions)<br>
Unsubscribe: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>