Hello Denis, Andrey, Igniters, Why don't we take a step further in improving the security model in Ignite 3? I think it would be great to have a default implementation of user-role-permission model in Ignite to be on par with security models of widely-used databases. This will complement community efforts in making most of the Ignite 3 behavior to be changeable in runtime.
WDYT? Should we have a community meeting to discuss this? чт, 8 апр. 2021 г. в 23:54, Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com>: > Hi Denis! > > The idea and prototype look great. > > I'd like to highlight one arguable point. Default authorization > implementation still assumes there are permissions provided in > SecuritySubject. In turn, authentication is still responsible for filling > these permissions. I suggest decoupling authentication from authorization, > so that GridSecurityProcessor implementation is fully responsible for > obtaining permissions for SecuritySubject given on authorization. In > particular, implementation can choose an existing behavior of bundling > permissions with SecuritySubject. > > Makes sense? > > чт, 8 апр. 2021 г. в 17:52, Denis Garus <garus....@gmail.com>: > > > Sorry, I forgot to point the link > > > > 1. https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8989 > > > > чт, 8 апр. 2021 г. в 17:50, Denis Garus <garus....@gmail.com>: > > > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > > > I want to propose to improve the way which we use > > > to present permissions in Ignite 3. > > > > > > The model of permission in Ignite has a set of drawbacks. > > > The main drawback, IMHO: if you need to add a new permission, > > > you should change the core module by extended the 'SecurityPermission' > > > enum. > > > An approach like this becomes more challenged if new permission is > > created > > > for an extension. > > > > > > The existing permission model is overcomplicated. > > > The SecurityPermission enum is divided into four groups, > > > and to determine whether a security subject has been given permission, > > > a plugin developer has to know what the permission group is. > > > But 'CACHE_CREATE' and 'CACHE_DESTROY' are included in two groups > (system > > > operations and cache operations). > > > When 'CACHE_CREATE' ('CACHE_DESTROY') is treated as system permission, > > > it applies to all caches. In other cases, when 'CACHE_CREATE' > > > ('CACHE_DESTROY') is treated as cache permission, > > > permission checking is executed with the account of the cache name. > > > IMHO, this logic is hard to understand. > > > There is no ability to represent compound operation as single > permission > > > and so on. > > > > > > > > > So I would like to suggest using a permission model that is based on > > > 'java.security.Permission'. > > > I prepared the concept [1] of how this model could look in Ignite. > > > Classes 'CachePermission', 'ComputePermission', and 'ServicePermission' > > > represent cache, compute, > > > and service permissions accordingly, allow wildcards, for example, > > > "org.apache.ignite.internal.*". > > > Class 'IgniteClusterPermission' represents permission without actions. > > > Interface 'GridSecurityProcessor' has a default implementation of the > > > 'authorize' method. > > > 'SecurityTestSuite' is green. > > > > > > > > > This representation of permission, IMHO, has the following advantages: > > > - A developer can easily add new permission without needing to touch > the > > > core module. > > > - There is no need to implement complicated logic to authorize an > > > operation inside a security plugin. > > > But a developer has the opportunity to add custom logic. > > > - Wildcards for permission's name from a box, for example, 'new > > > CachePermission("x.y.z.*", "get,put")'. > > > - There is no need to implement 'SecurityPermissionSet' and a set of > > > methods from 'SecurityContex' ('xxxAllowed(String, > SecurityPermission))'. > > > - We can define a security policy in a file as java does. It could > > > simplify work for administrators. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey Kuznetsov. >
