Open Stack

Hi Henry,

Thanks for looking in to my comments, I was trying to raise #3 from your list.  Any ways lets discuss this topic on etherpad from here onwards.

Thanks,
Arvind
________________________________________
From: Henry Nash [henryn at linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:58 AM
To: Tiwari, Arvind
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] More on inherited domain roles

Hi

So what you have described is correct, in terms of needing multiple roles IF you want one role that only goes to projects and one that doesn't (e.g. maybe goes to just domains). Role explosion was the issue raised against using the role def to hold inheritance behaviour, when it was first discussed.  However, I'd make the following comments:

1) Most services don't need to be concerned about domains, just projects - in fact, today, only keystone understands domains.  Hence there really won't be a role explosion  in terms "Number of Services" x "Multiple roles due to inheritance to projects or domains"
2) In addition, I can imagine than often a cloud provider will create  roles that are project related separate from those that are domain related - they tend to be different people doing those roles (e.g. user_group_admin vs VM_admin etc.), so again, I think there won't be much of any additional role explosion due to the inheritance rules between these roles
3) What there might be, is some role explosions between roles that go to all domains vs roles that go to individual domains - for that, you will need multiple roles.
4) For correctness (since we spend 40 mins on IRC on this :-) ), the "inherited to:" field you use wasn't one of the discussed options - I agree this is not the email to discuss that, but I don't want anyone thinking that the structure below was one we looked at.

For all:  The options being discussed are continuing on an etherpad, see: https://etherpad.openstack.org/keystone-role-inheritance.  This contains all the various options being considered, including links to the previous ones we looked at (e.g. not using the role def)

Henry
On 11 Jun 2013, at 21:18, Tiwari, Arvind wrote:

Hi All,

Role inheritance is very cool feature and we need this in product, but letting RoleDef to drive the inheritance behavior seem wrong to me as it will cause roleDef explosion and complex policy for services to support.

Let’s assume a requirement

1.       Cloud admin should have XYZ capability on all the projects, all domains for Sev1. (Global inheritance)
2.       Domain admin should have XYZ capability only on the projects in specific domain for Sev1. (inheritance scoped to a domain)

With the current approach (having inherited to in roleDef) we have to have following two roleDefs to support the requirement and hence you have to adjust the policy around these two roleDefs but end result is XYZ capability.
{
    "role": {
        "id": "---id---",
        "inheritedTo": "domain=all and project=all", (This means, holder of this role has XYZ capability in all projects in all domains) (Lets not worry about the how we implement it enum / Boolean flag)
        "links": {
            "self": "http://identity:35357/v3/roles/76e72a"
        },
        "name": "XYZ-Role-4-cloud-admin"
    }
}

{
    "role": {
        "id": "---id---",
        "inheritedTo": “project=all", (This means, holder of this role has XYZ capability in all projects in specific domain)
        "links": {
            "self": "http://identity:35357/v3/roles/76e72a"
        },
        "name": " XYZ-Role-4-domain-admin "
    }
}

Think about growing number of service and above mentioned requirement, we will end up with so many  roleDefs which will have duplicate capability and hence redundant info to maintain in policy. At the same time this solution does not address separation of concerns, we are unnecessary overloading the roleDefs to impose role inheritance behavior which is not its concern. The above mentioned requirement can be easily achievable by single roleDef (may be XYZ-role-Svc1) if we remove inheritedTo concern from roleDef and place it some ware else, role assignment is the right place to address this concern, how that we need to figure out.

Let me know if the issue I mentioned looks legitimate.


Thanks,
Arvind

From: Henry Nash [mailto:henryn at linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 4:30 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: [openstack-dev] [keystone] More on inherited domain roles

Hi

So I ave submitted two new api reviews around this:

1) Defining inherited roles - this is now done on the role def itself, as suggested by David. See: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/29781/12
2) The two un-implmented user/role apis have been replaces with a more flexible way of listing role-assignments. See:https://review.openstack.org/#/c/32394/2

I'd like to push to get this nailed asap, so we can have a  shot at getting the code in!

Both of these extensions are designed to give us the option to to expand this support for inheritance to all domains in the future if we chose.

Henry