Open Stack

On 02/05/14 at 03:30am, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>
>On Feb 5, 2014, at 2:38 AM, Florent Flament <florent.flament-ext at cloudwatt.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Vish,
>>
>> You're approach looks very interesting. I especially like the idea of 'walking the tree of parent projects, to construct the set of roles'.
>>
>> Here are some issues that came to my mind:
>>
>>
>> Regarding policy rules enforcement:
>>
>> Considering the following projects:
>> * orga
>> * orga.projecta
>> * orga.projectb
>>
>> Let's assume that Joe has the following roles:
>> * `Member` of `orga`
>> * `admin` of `orga.projectb`
>>
>> Now Joe wishes to launch a VM on `orga.projecta` and grant a role to some user on `orga.projectb` (which rights he has). He would like to be able to do all of this with the same token (scoped on project `orga`?).
>>
>> For this scenario to be working, we would need to be able to store multiple roles (a tree of roles?) in the token, so that services would know which role is granted to the user on which project.
>>
>> In a first time, I guess we could stay with the roles scoped to a unique project. Joe would be able to do what he wants, by getting a first token on `orga` or `orga.projecta` with a `Member` role, then a second token on `orga.projectb` with the `admin` role.
>
>This is a good point, having different roles on different levels of the hierarchy does lead to having to reauthenticate for certain actions. Keystone could pass the scope along with each role instead of a single global scope. The policy check in this could be modifed to do matching on role && prefix against the scope of ther role so policy like:
>
>“remove_user_from_project”: “role:project_admin and scope_prefix:project_id”
>
>This starts to get complex and unwieldy however because a single token allows you to do anything and everything based on your roles. I think we need a healthy balance between ease of use and the principle of least privilege, so we might be best to stick to a single scope for each token and force a reauthentication to do adminy stuff in projectb.
>
>>
>>
>> Considering quotas enforcement:
>>
>> Let's say we wants set the following limits:
>>
>> * `orga` : max 10 VMs
>> * ̀ orga.projecta` : max 8 VMs
>> * `orga.projectb` : max 8 VMs
>>
>> The idea would be that the `admin` of `orga` wishes to allow 8 VMs to projects ̀`orga.projecta` or `orga.projectb`, but doesn't care how these VMs are spread. Although he wishes to keep 2 VMs in `orga` for himself.
>
>This seems like a bit of a stretch as a use case. Sharing a set of quotas across two projects seems strange and if we did have arbitrary nesting you could do the same by sticking a dummy project in between
>
>orga: max 10
>orga.dummy: max 8
>orga.dummy.projecta: no max
>orga.dummy.projectb: no max
>>
>> Then to be able to enforce these quotas, Nova (and all other services) would have to keep track of the tree of quotas, and update the appropriate nodes.
>>
>>
>> By the way, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be DRYer to centralize the RBAC and Quotas logic in a unique service (Keystone?). Openstack services (Nova, Cinder, ...) would just have to ask this centralized access management service whether an action is authorized for a given token?
>
>So I threw out the idea the other day that quota enforcement should perhaps be done by gantt. Quotas seem to be a scheduling concern more than anything else.

I don't want to take this thread off topic, but I would argue against 
this.  I don't want a request for a place to put an instance or volume 
to mean that an instance or volume has been created with regards to 
quotas.


>>
>> Florent Flament
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Vishvananda Ishaya" <vishvananda at gmail.com>
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 10:58:28 PM
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [keystone][nova] Re: Hierarchicical Multitenancy	Discussion
>>
>> Hello Again!
>>
>> At the meeting last week we discussed some options around getting true multitenancy in nova. The use case that we are trying to support can be described as follows:
>>
>> "Martha, the owner of ProductionIT provides it services to multiple Enterprise clients. She would like to offer cloud services to Joe at WidgetMaster, and Sam at SuperDevShop. Joe is a Development Manager for WidgetMaster and he has multiple QA and Development teams with many users. Joe needs the ability create users, projects, and quotas, as well as the ability to list and delete resources across WidgetMaster. Martha needs to be able to set the quotas for both WidgetMaster and SuperDevShop; manage users, projects, and objects across the entire system; and set quotas for the client companies as a whole. She also needs to ensure that Joe can't see or mess with anything owned by Sam."
>>
>> As per the plan I outlined in the meeting I have implemented a Proof-of-Concept that would allow me to see what changes were required in nova to get scoped tenancy working. I used a simple approach of faking out heirarchy by prepending the id of the larger scope to the id of the smaller scope. Keystone uses uuids internally, but for ease of explanation I will pretend like it is using the name. I think we can all agree that ‘orga.projecta’ is more readable than ‘b04f9ea01a9944ac903526885a2666dec45674c5c2c6463dad3c0cb9d7b8a6d8’.
>>
>> The code basically creates the following five projects:
>>
>> orga
>> orga.projecta
>> orga.projectb
>> orgb
>> orgb.projecta
>>
>> I then modified nova to replace everywhere where it searches or limits policy by project_id to do a prefix match. This means that someone using project ‘orga’ should be able to list/delete instances in orga, orga.projecta, and orga.projectb.
>>
>> You can find the code here:
>>
>>  https://github.com/vishvananda/devstack/commit/10f727ce39ef4275b613201ae1ec7655bd79dd5f
>>  https://github.com/vishvananda/nova/commit/ae4de19560b0a3718efaffb6c205c7a3c372412f
>>
>> Keeping in mind that this is a prototype, but I’m hoping to come to some kind of consensus as to whether this is a reasonable approach. I’ve compiled a list of pros and cons.
>>
>> Pros:
>>
>>  * Very easy to understand
>>  * Minimal changes to nova
>>  * Good performance in db (prefix matching uses indexes)
>>  * Could be extended to cover more complex scenarios like multiple owners or multiple scopes
>>
>> Cons:
>>
>>  * Nova has no map of the hierarchy
>>  * Moving projects would require updates to ownership inside of nova
>>  * Complex scenarios involving delegation of roles may be a bad fit
>>  * Database upgrade to hierarchy could be tricky
>>
>> If this seems like a reasonable set of tradeoffs, there are a few things that need to be done inside of nova bring this to a complete solution:
>>
>>  * Prefix matching needs to go into oslo.policy
>>  * Should the tenant_id returned by the api reflect the full ‘orga.projecta’, or just the child ‘projecta’ or match the scope: i.e. the first if you are authenticated to orga and the second if you are authenticated to the project?
>>  * Possible migrations for existing project_id fields
>>  * Use a different field for passing ownership scope instead of overloading project_id
>>  * Figure out how nested quotas should work
>>  * Look for other bugs relating to scoping
>>
>> Also, we need to decide how keystone should construct and pass this information to the services. The obvious case that could be supported today would be to allow a single level of hierarchy using domains. For example, if domains are active, keystone could pass domain.project_id for ownership_scope. This could be controversial because potentially domains are just for grouping users and shouldn’t be applied to projects.
>>
>> I think the real value of this approach would be to allow nested projects with role inheritance. When keystone is creating the token, it could walk the tree of parent projects, construct the set of roles, and construct the ownership_scope as it walks to the root of the tree.
>>
>> Finally, similar fixes will need to be made in the other projects to bring this to a complete solution.
>>
>> Please feel free to respond with any input, and we will be having another Hierarchical Multitenancy Meeting on Friday at 1600 UTC to discuss.
>>
>> Vish
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya <vishvananda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> I apologize for the obtuse title, but there isn't a better succinct term to describe what is needed. OpenStack has no support for multiple owners of objects. This means that a variety of private cloud use cases are simply not supported. Specifically, objects in the system can only be managed on the tenant level or globally.
>>>
>>> The key use case here is to delegate administration rights for a group of tenants to a specific user/role. There is something in Keystone called a “domain” which supports part of this functionality, but without support from all of the projects, this concept is pretty useless.
>>>
>>> In IRC today I had a brief discussion about how we could address this. I have put some details and a straw man up here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/HierarchicalMultitenancy
>>>
>>> I would like to discuss this strawman and organize a group of people to get actual work done by having an irc meeting this Friday at 1600UTC. I know this time is probably a bit tough for Europe, so if we decide we need a regular meeting to discuss progress then we can vote on a better time for this meeting.
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings#Hierarchical_Multitenancy_Meeting
>>>
>>> Please note that this is going to be an active team that produces code. We will *NOT* spend a lot of time debating approaches, and instead focus on making something that works and learning as we go. The output of this team will be a MultiTenant devstack install that actually works, so that we can ensure the features we are adding to each project work together.
>>>
>>> Vish
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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