Open Stack

I liked the idea of not storing the tokens and keystone will verify the
validity by signature. Expiry time can still be set for the generated token
however we want.

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Ali, Haneef <haneef.ali at hp.com> wrote:

>  **1)      **I’m really not sure how that will solve the original issue
> (Token table size increase).  Of course we can have a job to remove the
> expired token. ****
>
> **2)      **We really have to think how the other services are using
> keystone.  Keystone “createToken” volume is going to increase. Fixing one
> issue going to create another one.****
>
> **1.       ** If I  understood correctly  swift is using memcache to
> increase the  validateToken performance.  What will happen to it?
> Obviously load  to  “validateToken” will also increase.****
>
> **2.       **In few cases I have seen VM creation taking more than 5
> min.  ( download image from glance and create vm).   Short lived token ( 5
> min) will be a real fun  in this case.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> Haneef****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Ravi Chunduru [mailto:ravivsn at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:49 AM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] FW: [Keystone][Folsom] Token re-use****
>
>  ** **
>
> +1 ****
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Dolph Mathews <dolph.mathews at gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com> wrote:****
>
> I really want to go the other way on this:  I want token to be very short
> lived, ideally something like 1 minute, but probably 5 minutes to account
> for clock skew.  I want to get rid of token revocation list checking.  I'd
> like to get away from revocation altogether:  tokens are not stored in the
> backend.  If they are ephemeral, we can just check that the token has a
> valid signature and that the time has not expired.****
>
> ** **
>
> +10****
>
>  ****
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 06/19/2013 12:59 PM, Ravi Chunduru wrote:****
>
> Thats still an open item in this thread. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Let me summarize once again****
>
> ** **
>
> 1) Use case for keystone not to re-issue same token for same credentials**
> **
>
> 2) Ratelimit cons and service unavailability ****
>
> 3) Further information on python keyring if not going by keystone re-issue
> of the tokens.****
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Yee, Guang <guang.yee at hp.com> wrote:****
>
> Just out of curiosity, is there really a use case where user need to
> request multiple tokens of the same scope, where the only difference are
> the expiration dates?****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Guang****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Dolph Mathews [mailto:dolph.mathews at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:27 AM****
>
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] FW: [Keystone][Folsom] Token re-use****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Ali, Haneef <haneef.ali at hp.com> wrote:***
> *
>
> 1)      Token Caching is not always going to help. It depends on the
> application.    E.g  A user  writes a cron  job to check the health of
> swift by listing a  predefined container every 1 minute.    This will
> obviously create a token every minute.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> 2)      Also  I like to understand how rate limiting is done for v3
> tokens.   Rate limiting involves source ip + request pattern.  In V3 there
> are so many ways to get the token and the rate limiting becomes too complex
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Rate limit the number of requests to POST /v2.0/tokens and POST
> /v3/auth/tokens****
>
>  Just for unscoped token,  all the following are equivalent requests.
>  In case of scoped tokens we have even more combinations.   Rouge clients
> can easily mess with rate limiting by mixing request patterns. Also rate
> limiting across regions may not be possible.****
>
> a.        UserId/Password****
>
> b.       UserName/Password/domainId****
>
> c.       UserName/Password/DomainName****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks****
>
> Haneef****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Ravi Chunduru [mailto:ravivsn at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:02 PM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] FW: [Keystone][Folsom] Token re-use****
>
>  ****
>
> I agree we need a way to overcome these rogue clients but by rate limiting
> genuine requests will get effected. Then one would need retries and some
> times critical operations gets failed. It beats the whole logic of being
> available.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> About the keyrings, How do we tackle if a service is using JSON API calls
> and not python clients?****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> -Ravi.****
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com> wrote:****
>
> On 06/18/2013 09:13 PM, Kant, Arun wrote:****
>
>  The issue with having un-managed number of tokens for same credential is
> that it can be easily exploited. Getting a token is one of initial step
> (gateway) to get access to services. A rogue client can keep creating
> unlimited number of tokens and possibly create denial of service attack on
> services. If there are somewhat limited number of tokens, then cloud
> provider can possibly use tokenId based rate-limiting approach.****
>
>  Better here to rate limit, then.****
>
>
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Extending the expiry to some fixed interval might be okay as that can be
> considered as continuing user session similar to what is seen when a user
> keeps browsing an application while logged in.  ****
>
> Tokens are resources created by Keystone.  No reason to ask to create
> something new if it is not needed.
>
> The caching needs to be done client side.  We have ongoing work using
> python-keyring to support that.****
>
>  ****
>
> -Arun****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From: *Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com>
> *Reply-To: *OpenStack Development Mailing List <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> *Date: *Friday, June 14, 2013 3:33 PM
> *To: *"openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Folsom] Token re-use****
>
>  ****
>
> On 06/13/2013 07:58 PM, Ravi Chunduru wrote:****
>
> Hi, ****
>
>   We are having Folsom setup and we find that our token table increases a
> lot. I understand client can re-use the token but why doesnt keystone reuse
> the token if client asks it with same credentials.. ****
>
> I would like to know if there is any reason for not doing so.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks in advance,****
>
> --
> Ravi****
>
>  ****
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list****
>
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.orghttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev****
>
>  You can cache the token on the client side and reuse. Tokens have a an
> expiry, so if you request a new token, you extend the expiry.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list****
>
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org****
>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev****
>
>   ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev****
>
>
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> --
> Ravi****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev****
>
>   ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Ravi****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list****
>
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org****
>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev****
>
>  ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev****
>
>   ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Ravi****
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Ravi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130620/852160d4/attachment.html>