[openstack-dev] =?gb2312?B?UkU6IFtvcGVuc3RhY2stZGV2XSBbYWxsXSBbdGNdIFtQVExdIENhc2NhZGlu?= =?gb2312?B?ZyB2cy4gQ2VsbHMgqEMgc3VtbWl0IHJlY2FwIGFuZCBtb3ZlIGZvcndhcmQ=?=
joehuang at huawei.com
Mon Dec 15 13:03:04 UTC 2014
The keystone is global service for cascading OpenStack and cascaded OpenStacks, just like it works for multi-region. PKI token/UUID token should be workable for multi-region first, if there is some security issues, we need to fix it, no matter cascading introduced or not.
Using global KeyStone makes the project ID/user/role/domain/group have consistentent view in the cloud. The token used in the request to cascading Nova/Cinder/Neutron will be transfered in the request to the cascaded Nova/Cinder/Neutron too.
Chaoyi Huang ( joehuang )
From: Morgan Fainberg [morgan.fainberg at gmail.com]
Sent: 13 December 2014 19:42
To: Henry; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] [PTL] Cascading vs. Cells ¨C summit recap and move forward
On December 13, 2014 at 3:26:34 AM, Henry (henry4hly at gmail.com<mailto:henry4hly at gmail.com>) wrote:
A good question about keystone.
In fact, keystone is naturally suitable for multi-region deployment. It has only REST service interface, and PKI based token greatly reduce the central service workload. So, unlike other openstack service, it would not be set to cascade mode.
I agree that Keystone is suitable for multi-region in some cases, I am still concerned from a security standpoint. The cascade examples all assert a *global* tenant_id / project_id in a lot of comments/documentation. The answer you gave me doesn¡¯t quite address this issue nor the issue of a disparate deployment having a wildly different role-set or security profile. A PKI token is not (as of today) possible to use with a Keystone (or OpenStack deployment) that it didn¡¯t come from. This is like this because Keystone needs to control the AuthZ for it¡¯s local deployment (same design as the keystone-to-keystone federation).
So I have to direct questions:
* Is there something specific you expect to happen with the cascading that makes resolving a project_id to something globally unique or am I mis-reading this as part of the design?
* Does the cascade centralization just ask for Keystone tokens for each of the deployments or is there something else being done? Essentially how does one work with a Nova from cloud XXX and cloud YYY from an authorization standpoint?
You don¡¯t need to answer these right away, but they are clarification points that need to be thought about as this design moves forward. There are a number of security / authorization questions I can expand on, but the above two are the really big ones to start with. As you scale up (or utilize deployments owned by different providers) it isn¡¯t always possible to replicate the Keystone data around.
Sent from my iPad
On 2014-12-13, at ÏÂÎç3:12, Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainberg at gmail.com<mailto:morgan.fainberg at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Dec 12, 2014, at 10:30, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com<mailto:joe.gordon0 at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com<mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>> wrote:
On 12/11/2014 12:55 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> Cells can handle a single API on top of globally distributed DCs. I
> have spoken with a group that is doing exactly that. But it requires
> that the API is a trusted part of the OpenStack deployments in those
> distributed DCs.
And the way the rest of the components fit into that scenario is far
from clear to me. Do you consider this more of a "if you can make it
work, good for you", or something we should aim to be more generally
supported over time? Personally, I see the globally distributed
OpenStack under a single API case much more complex, and worth
considering out of scope for the short to medium term, at least.
For me, this discussion boils down to ...
1) Do we consider these use cases in scope at all?
2) If we consider it in scope, is it enough of a priority to warrant a
cross-OpenStack push in the near term to work on it?
3) If yes to #2, how would we do it? Cascading, or something built
I haven't worried about #3 much, because I consider #2 or maybe even #1
to be a show stopper here.
I agree with Russell as well. I also am curious on how identity will work in these cases. As it stands identity provides authoritative information only for the deployment it runs. There is a lot of concern I have from a security standpoint when I start needing to address what the central api can do on the other providers. We have had this discussion a number of times in Keystone, specifically when designing the keystone-to-keystone identity federation, and we came to the conclusion that we needed to ensure that the keystone local to a given cloud is the only source of authoritative authz information. While it may, in some cases, accept authn from a source that is trusted, it still controls the local set of roles and grants.
Second, we only guarantee that a tenan_id / project_id is unique within a single deployment of keystone (e.g. Shared/replicated backends such as a percona cluster, which cannot be when crossing between differing IAAS deployers/providers). If there is ever a tenant_id conflict (in theory possible with ldap assignment or an unlucky random uuid generation) between installations, you end up with potentially granting access that should not exist to a given user.
With that in mind, how does Keystone fit into this conversation? What is expected of identity? What would keystone need to actually support to make this a reality?
I ask because I've only seen information on nova, glance, cinder, and ceilometer in the documentation. Based upon the above information I outlined, I would be concerned with an assumption that identity would "just work" without also being part of this conversation.
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev