Open Stack

Some kind of intermediate mapping might be better. With ldap, I dont have control over the groups users are assigned since thats an enterprise/AD thing. There can be a lot of them. Groups to Role relations I guess do that mapping. Though maybe passing groups directly when domains can have different group meanings might be a big problem.

Does federation have a way to map a federated group to a local group somehow?

Thanks,
Kevin

________________________________
From: Steve Martinelli
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:19:16 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican] Regarding exposing X-Group-xxxx in token validation

Dozens to hundreds of roles or endpoints could cause an issue now :)

But yeah, groups are much more likely to number in the dozens than roles or endpoints. But I think the Fernet token size is so small that it could probably handle this (since it does so now for the federated workflow).

Thanks,

Steve Martinelli
OpenStack Keystone Core



From:        "Fox, Kevin M" <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov>
To:        "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Date:        06/03/2015 11:14 PM
Subject:        Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican] Regarding        exposing        X-Group-xxxx in token validation
________________________________



Will dozens to a hundred groups or so on one user cause issues? :)

Thanks,
Kevin

________________________________
From: Morgan Fainberg
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 7:23:22 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican] Regarding exposing X-Group-xxxx in token validation

In general I am of the opinion with the move to Fernet there is no good reason we should avoid adding the group information into the token.

--Morgan

Sent via mobile

On Jun 3, 2015, at 18:44, Dolph Mathews <dolph.mathews at gmail.com<mailto:dolph.mathews at gmail.com>> wrote:


On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:58 PM, John Wood <john.wood at rackspace.com<mailto:john.wood at rackspace.com>> wrote:
Hello folks,

There has been discussion about adding user group support to the per-secret access control list (ACL) feature in Barbican. Hence secrets could be marked as accessible by a group on the ACL rather than an individual user as implemented now.

Our understanding is that Keystone does not pass along a user’s group information during token validation however (such as in the form of X-Group-Ids/X-Group-Names headers passed along via Keystone middleware).

The pre-requisite for including that information in the form of headers would be adding group information to the token validation response. In the case of UUID, it would be pre-computed and stored in the DB at token creation time. In the case of PKI, it would be encoded into the PKI token and further bloat PKI tokens. And in the case of Fernet, it would be included at token validation time.

Including group information, however, would also let us efficient revoke tokens using token revocation events when group membership is affected in any way (user being removed from a group, a group being deleted, or a group-based role assignment being revoked). The OS-FEDERATION extension is actually already including groups in tokens today, as a required part of the federated workflow. We'd effectively be introducing that same behavior into the core Identity API (see the federated token example):

  https://github.com/openstack/keystone-specs/blob/master/api/v3/identity-api-v3-os-federation-ext.rst#request-an-unscoped-os-federation-token

This would allow us to address bugs such as:

  https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1268751

In the past, we shied away from including groups if only to avoid bloating the size of PKI tokens any further (but now we have Fernet tokens providing a viable alternative). Are there any other reasons not to add group information to the token validation response?


Would the community consider this a useful feature? Would the community consider adding this support to Liberty?

Thank you,
John


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@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<mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150604/03f88bdd/attachment.html>