Open Stack

I dont see why this is not possible. The DB has an API which allows each
service to retrieve its own policy, so with an appropriate helper app
then any service should be able to read a serialised policy from the DB
as if it were reading in a file from the local file store

regards

David

On 04/06/2015 01:46, Hu, David J (Converged Cloud) wrote:
> I am not a big fan of putting admins through a multi-step process.  It looks like admins will need to learn unified policy file first, then 1 or 2 or more releases later, learn about policy in the db.  I understand we are doing things incrementally.  I would prefer that we come up with something or some process that voids the hassle of dealing with unified policy file for admins.  In other words, admins go straight from policy file as is today to policy in the db.
> 
> 
> David
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Young [mailto:ayoung at redhat.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 4:39 PM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] [nova] [oslo] [cross-project] Dynamic Policy
> 
> On 06/03/2015 02:55 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 06/03/2015 02:44 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
>>> In the design that we have been building for a policy administration 
>>> database, we dont require a single policy in order to unify common 
>>> concepts such as hierarchical attributes and roles between the 
>>> different policies of Openstack services. This is because policies 
>>> and hierarchies are held separately and are linked via a many to many 
>>> relationship. My understanding of Adam's primary requirement was that 
>>> a role hierarchy say, should be common across all OpenStack service 
>>> policies, without this necessarily meaning you have to have one huge 
>>> policy. And there is no requirement for Keystone to own all the 
>>> policies. So each service could still own and manage its own policy, 
>>> whilst having attribute hierarchies in common.
>>>
>>> Does this help?
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> David
>> That part makes total sense. What concerned me is there was an 
>> intermediary step that seemed like it was literally *one file* 
>> (https://review.openstack.org/134656). That particular step I think is 
>> unworkable.
> 
> How is this for an approach:
> 
> 1.  Unified policy  file that is just the union of what is in the current projects.  Each project will have a clearly marked section.
> 
> 2.  Split up the main file into sections, one per each project, and put those in separate files.  Build system will concatenate them into a single file.
> 
> 3.  Allow each of the projects to replace their section of the file with file containing just an URL to the upstream git repo that contains their project specific section.  When building the overall unified policy file, those projects that have their own section will get it merged in from their own repos.
> 
> 4.  Eventually, the unified policy file will be expected to be built out of each of the projects git repos.
> 
> I agree with you that we want the projects to manage their own, I just think we need a scrub step where we all look at the individual sections together with a critical eye first.
> 
>>
>> By "common role hierachy" do you mean namespaced roles for services?
>> Because if yes, definitely. And I think that's probably the first
>> concrete step moving the whole thing forward, which should be doable on
>> the existing static json definitions.
>>
>> 	-Sean
>>
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>