Open Stack

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Marc Heckmann <marc.heckmann at ubisoft.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 10:09 -0500, Lance Bragstad wrote:
>
> Also, with all the people involved with this thread, I'm curious what the
> best way is to get consensus. If I've tallied the responses properly, we
> have 5 in favor of option #2 and 1 in favor of option #3. This week is spec
> freeze for keystone, so I see a slim chance of this getting committed to
> Pike [0]. If we do have spare cycles across the team we could start working
> on an early version and get eyes on it. If we straighten out everyone
> concerns early we could land option #2 early in Queens.
>
>
> I was the only one in favour of option 3 only because I've spent a bunch
> of time playing with option #1 in the past. As I mentioned previously in
> the thread, if #2 is more in line with where the project is going, then I'm
> all for it. At this point, the admin scope issue has been around long
> enough that Queens doesn't seem that far off.
>

>From an administrative point-of-view, would you consider option #1 or
option #2 to better long term?


>
> -m
>
>
> I guess it comes down to how fast folks want it.
>
> [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464763/
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Lance Bragstad <lbragstad at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I replied to John, but directly. I'm sending the responses I sent to him
> but with the intended audience on the thread. Sorry for not catching that
> earlier.
>
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 2:44 AM, John Garbutt <john at johngarbutt.com>
> wrote:
>
> +1 on not forcing Operators to transition to something new twice, even if
> we did go for option 3.
>
>
> The more I think about this, the more it worries me from a developer
> perspective. If we ended up going with option 3, then we'd be supporting
> both methods of elevating privileges. That means two paths for doing the
> same thing in keystone. It also means oslo.context, keystonemiddleware, or
> any other library consuming tokens that needs to understand elevated
> privileges needs to understand both approaches.
>
>
>
> Do we have an agreed non-distruptive upgrade path mapped out yet? (For any
> of the options) We spoke about fallback rules you pass but with a warning
> to give us a smoother transition. I think that's my main objection with the
> existing patches, having to tell all admins to get their token for a
> different project, and give them roles in that project, all before being
> able to upgrade.
>
>
> Thanks for bringing up the upgrade case! You've kinda described an upgrade
> for option 1. This is what I was thinking for option 2:
>
> - deployment upgrades to a release that supports global role assignments
> - operator creates a set of global roles (i.e. global_admin)
> - operator grants global roles to various people that need it (i.e. all
> admins)
> - operator informs admins to create globally scoped tokens
> - operator rolls out necessary policy changes
>
> If I'm thinking about this properly, nothing would change at the
> project-scope level for existing users (who don't need a global role
> assignment). I'm hoping someone can help firm ^ that up or improve it if
> needed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> johnthetubaguy
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2017 at 08:09, Belmiro Moreira <
> moreira.belmiro.email.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> thanks for bringing this into discussion in the Operators list.
>
> Option 1 and 2 and not complementary but complety different.
> So, considering "Option 2" and the goal to target it for Queens I would
> prefer not going into a migration path in
> Pike and then again in Queens.
>
> Belmiro
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 2:52 AM, joehuang <joehuang at huawei.com> wrote:
>
> I think a option 2 is better.
>
> Best Regards
> Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Lance Bragstad [lbragstad at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 25 May 2017 3:47
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions);
> openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][nova][cinder][glance][neutron][horizon][policy]
> defining admin-ness
>
> I'd like to fill in a little more context here. I see three options with
> the current two proposals.
>
> *Option 1*
>
> Use a special admin project to denote elevated privileges. For those
> unfamiliar with the approach, it would rely on every deployment having an
> "admin" project defined in configuration [0].
>
> *How it works:*
>
> Role assignments on this project represent global scope which is denoted
> by a boolean attribute in the token response. A user with an 'admin' role
> assignment on this project is equivalent to the global or cloud
> administrator. Ideally, if a user has a 'reader' role assignment on the
> admin project, they could have access to list everything within the
> deployment, pending all the proper changes are made across the various
> services. The workflow requires a special project for any sort of elevated
> privilege.
>
> Pros:
> - Almost all the work is done to make keystone understand the admin
> project, there are already several patches in review to other projects to
> consume this
> - Operators can create roles and assign them to the admin_project as
> needed after the upgrade to give proper global scope to their users
>
> Cons:
> - All global assignments are linked back to a single project
> - Describing the flow is confusing because in order to give someone global
> access you have to give them a role assignment on a very specific project,
> which seems like an anti-pattern
> - We currently don't allow some things to exist in the global sense (i.e.
> I can't launch instances without tenancy), the admin project could own
> resources
> - What happens if the admin project disappears?
> - Tooling or scripts will be written around the admin project, instead of
> treating all projects equally
>
> *Option 2*
>
> Implement global role assignments in keystone.
>
> *How it works:*
>
> Role assignments in keystone can be scoped to global context. Users can
> then ask for a globally scoped token
>
> Pros:
> - This approach represents a more accurate long term vision for role
> assignments (at least how we understand it today)
> - Operators can create global roles and assign them as needed after the
> upgrade to give proper global scope to their users
> - It's easier to explain global scope using global role assignments
> instead of a special project
> - token.is_global = True and token.role = 'reader' is easier to understand
> than token.is_admin_project = True and token.role = 'reader'
> - A global token can't be associated to a project, making it harder for
> operations that require a project to consume a global token (i.e. I
> shouldn't be able to launch an instance with a globally scoped token)
>
> Cons:
> - We need to start from scratch implementing global scope in keystone,
> steps for this are detailed in the spec
>
> *Option 3*
>
> We do option one and then follow it up with option two.
>
> *How it works:*
>
> We implement option one and continue solving the admin-ness issues in Pike
> by helping projects consume and enforce it. We then target the
> implementation of global roles for Queens.
>
> Pros:
> - If we make the interface in oslo.context for global roles consistent,
> then consuming projects shouldn't know the difference between using the
> admin_project or a global role assignment
>
> Cons:
> - It's more work and we're already strapped for resources
> - We've told operators that the admin_project is a thing but after Queens
> they will be able to do real global role assignments, so they should now
> migrate *again*
> - We have to support two paths for solving the same problem in keystone,
> more maintenance and more testing to ensure they both behave exactly the
> same way
>   - This can get more complicated for projects dedicated to testing policy
> and RBAC, like Patrole
>
>
> Looking for feedback here as to which one is preferred given timing and
> payoff, specifically from operators who would be doing the migrations to
> implement and maintain proper scope in their deployments.
>
> Thanks for reading!
>
>
> [0] https://github.com/openstack/keystone/blob/3d033df1c0fdc
> 6cc9d2b02a702efca286371f2bd/etc/keystone.conf.sample#L2334-L2342
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Lance Bragstad <lbragstad at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> To date we have two proposed solutions for tackling the admin-ness issue
> we have across the services. One builds on the existing scope concepts by
> scoping to an admin project [0]. The other introduces global role
> assignments [1] as a way to denote elevated privileges.
>
> I'd like to get some feedback from operators, as well as developers from
> other projects, on each approach. Since work is required in keystone, it
> would be good to get consensus before spec freeze (June 9th). If you have
> specific questions on either approach, feel free to ping me or drop by the
> weekly policy meeting [2].
>
> Thanks!
>
> [0] http://adam.younglogic.com/2017/05/fixing-bug-96869/
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464763/
> [2] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#Keystone_Policy_Meeting
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing listOpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.orghttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20170606/20f04358/attachment.html>