On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 8:57 AM Ghanshyam Mann gmann@ghanshyammann.com wrote:
---- On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:41:00 -0600 Mark Goddard mark@stackhpc.com wrote ----
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 19:55, Ghanshyam Mann gmann@ghanshyammann.com
wrote:
---- On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:36:53 -0600 Mark Goddard <
mark@stackhpc.com> wrote ----
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 18:40, Ghanshyam Mann <
gmann@ghanshyammann.com> wrote:
---- On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 03:35:33 -0600 Mark Goddard <
mark@stackhpc.com> wrote ----
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 16:12, Ghanshyam Mann <
gmann@ghanshyammann.com> wrote:
> > ---- On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 04:35:53 -0600 Mark Goddard <
mark@stackhpc.com> wrote ----
> > Hi, > > > > If you haven't been paying close attention, it would be
easy to miss
> > some of the upcoming RBAC changes which will have an
impact on
> > deployment projects. I thought I'd start a thread so
that we can share
> > how we are approaching this, get answers to open
questions, and
> > ideally all end up with a fairly consistent approach. > > > > The secure RBAC work has a long history, and continues
to evolve.
> > According to [1], we should start to see some fairly
substantial
> > changes over the next few releases. That spec is fairly
long, but
> > worth a read. > > > > In the yoga timeline [2], there is one change in
particular that has
> > an impact on deployment projects, "3. Keystone enforces
scope by
> > default". After this change, all of the deprecated
policies that many
> > still rely on in Keystone will be removed. > > > > In kolla-ansible, we have an etherpad [5] with some
notes, questions
> > and half-baked plans. We made some changes in Xena [3]
to use system
> > scope in some places when interacting with system APIs
in Ansible
> > tasks. > > > > The next change we have staged is to add the service
role to all
> > service users [4], in preparation for [2]. > > > > Question: should the role be added with system scope or
in the
> > existing service project? The obvious main use for this
is token
> > validation, which seems to allow system or project scope. > > > > We anticipate that some service users may still require
some
> > project-scoped roles, e.g. when creating resources for
octavia. We'll
> > deal with those on a case by case basis. > > Service roles are planned for phase2 which is Z release[1].
The Idea here is
> service to service communication will happen with 'service'
role (which keystone
> need to implement yet) and end users will keep using the
what ever role
> is default (or overridden in policy file) which can be
project or system scoped
> depends on the APIs. > > So at the end service-service APIs policy default will
looks like
> > '(role:admin and system:network and
project_id:%(project_id)s) or (role:service and project_name:service)'
> > Say nova will use that service role to communicate to
cinder and cinder policy will pass
> as service role is in OR in default policy. > > But let's see how they are going to be and if any
challenges when we will implement
> it in Z cycle.
I'm not 100% on our reasoning for using the service role in
yoga (I
wasn't in the discussion when we made the switch, although
John
Garbutt was), although I can provide at least one reason.
Currently, we have a bunch of service users doing things like
keystone
token validation using the admin role in the service project.
If we
enforce scopes & new defaults in keystone, this will no
longer work,
due to the default policy:
identity:validate_token: (role:reader and system_scope:all) or rule:service_role or rule:token_subject
Now we could go and assign system-reader to all these users,
but if
the end goal is to give them all the service role, and that
allows
token validation, then to me that seems like a better path.
Currently, we're creating the service role during deploy &
upgrade,
then assigning it to users. Keystone is supposed to create
the service
role in yoga, so we can eventually drop that part.
Does this seem reasonable? Is keystone still on track to
create the
service role in yoga?
I think this is a reasonable plan and once we have service roles
implemented
in keystone as well as in all the services to request other
service APIs then
deployment project (Kolla here) can update them from
system_reader to
actual service role.
To be clear, I am proposing to skip system-reader, and go straight
to
the service role in yoga.
But that would not be doable until services implement service roles
which is
Yoga cycle target for keystone and Z cyle target for other projects.
Or you mean
to re-consider to target the service role for all projects also in
Yoga so that
deployment projects can go with service role directly?
Our current plan is to add the service role to all service users in yoga. This will allow keystone token validation to work when keystone drops the deprecated policies.
We will not remove the admin role from service users in the service project during yoga. This will allow projects other than keystone to continue to work as before.
At some later point, we will remove the admin role from service users in the service project, hopefully relying on the service role for most service-service communication. There may be other roles we need to assign in order to drop admin, but we'll assess that as we go.
Hopefully that's a bit more of a clear picture, and it seems sensible?
+1, sounds good to me. Hopefully we will get in better shape by Z release when all (or maximum) services will be migrated to new RBAC. Till than your plan sounds reasonable.
-gmann
I'll follow the same approach in Puppet OpenStack and will add the project-scoped 'service' role to each service user by default. IIUC This is consistent with the current devstack which assigns the project-scoped service role to each service user, so I expect this approach will be tested in dsvm jobs [1]. [1] https://github.com/openstack/devstack/blob/d5d0bed479497560489983ae1fc80444b...
The same was already implemented in TripleO by [2] [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/+/819250
-gmann
And yes that can be done for token validation as well as the service-to-service API calls for example nova to cinder or
neutron to nova
APIs call. I do not think we can migrate everything (service
tokens) together for all
the services in deployment projects until all these services are
ready with the 'service'
role implementation (implementation means changing their default
roles
to add 'service' role for service-to-service APIs).
Regarding the keystone track on service role work in Yoga or
not, I do not
have clear answer may be Lance or keystone team can answer it.
But Lance
has spec up[1] but not yet merged.
[1]
https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/keystone-specs/+/818616
-gmann
> > > > > In anticipation of keystone setting enforce_scope=True
and removing
> > old default policies (which I assume effectively removes > > enforce_new_defaults?), we will set this in
kolla-ansible, and try to
> > deal with any fallout. Hopefully the previous work will
make this
> > minimal. > > > > How does that line up with other projects' approaches?
What have we missed?
> > Yeah, we want users/deployment projects/horizon etc to use
the new policy from
> keystone as first and we will see feedback how they are
(good, bad, really bad) from
> usage perspective. Why we choose keystone is, because new
policy are there since
> many cycle and ready to use. Other projects needs to work
their policy as per new
> SRBAC design/direction (for example nova needs to modify
their policy before we ask
> users to use new policy and work is under progress[2]). > > I think trying in kolla will be good way to know if we can
move to keystone's new policy
> completely in yoga.
We have a scope-enforcing preview patch [1], and it's passing
our base
set of tests. I have another that triggers all of the jobs.
[1]
https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/825406
> > [1]
https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/goals/selected/co...
> [2]
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/policy-defaults-refresh-2
> > -gmann > > > > > Mark > > > > [1]
https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/goals/selected/co...
> > [2]
https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/goals/selected/co...
> > [3]
https://opendev.org/openstack/kolla-ansible/commit/2e933dceb591c3505f35c2c1d...
> > [4]
https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/815577
> > [5]
https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/enabling-system-scope-in-kolla-ansible
> > > >