On 02/11/2013 09:18 AM, Oved Ourfalli wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doron Fediuck" <[email protected]>
To: "Andrew Cathrow" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 9:27:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Local Authentication Feature
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Cathrow" <[email protected]>
To: "Doron Fediuck" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 7:21:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Local Authentication Feature
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doron Fediuck" <[email protected]>
To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:02:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Local Authentication Feature
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <[email protected]>
To: "Doron Fediuck" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 5:37:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Local Authentication Feature
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doron Fediuck" <[email protected]>
To: "Juan Hernandez" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 5:26:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Local Authentication Feature
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Hernandez" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 7:50:36 PM
Subject: [Engine-devel] Local Authentication Feature
Hello,
I would like to propose a new feature that allows
authentication
using
the local user database. The details are here:
http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Local_Authentication
And the proposed change is available for review here:
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/11863
I appreciate feedback.
Thanks in advance,
Juan Hernandez
Hi Juan,
Very happy to see this one which actually closes an annoying
gap!
One thing which is missing is user management-
add/remove/change
users and groups. If we do not plan to handle it within
ovirt,
the
design should state it and explain how user management should
work.
User management is not included in the feature, like it isn't currently
with LDAP. The administrator has to use external tools to manage that
database, then use the GUI to add the users and give them permissions. I
updated the description accordingly.
Shouldn't this be the same as in case of external directory
service?
i.e - you manage user/group at the directory service, and then
you
"populate" engine with it (by adding permissions to
users/groups
or
adding explicitly new users/groups to engine?)
Also, what happens when a user is removed from the local DB-
will
all references to him be removed? Groups?
IMHO the behavior in this case should be as in case of current
LdapBroker.
Yes, the behavior is the same, the engine refreshes its database from
the external system (I need to test this).
This could be a decision but it's missing from the design.
The diff I see from current supported directory servers are that
they actually have their own management tools, which is not the
case for local DB. Again, you may state that the various userXXX
and groupXXX commandline utilities are the way to manage it, but
this is lacking from the design.
Local user support is a feature we certainly need, but somehow
ssh'ing into the node feels wrong.
A local db is better than the (creative) ssh hack.
An additional database is better in some scenarios (probably in most
scenarios) but there are scenarios where using the local database is
still better. For example if already using NIS or if you just need a few
users that are already users (or will be) of the system where you are
installing the engine.
IIUC it's an internal SSH just for the authentication part.
If it succeeds the user is authenticated. Otherwise the user
will fail to login. That's the only use of the ssh. everything
else should work as it used to so far.
SSH is used only for authentication. Users don't need a home directory
or permission to use a shell. A typical user would be added like this:
useradd -M -s /sbin/nologin -c 'Whatever' whatever
In addition the SSH used for authentication is completely local, so
external SSH access could be blocked by the firewall and authentication
will still work.
I also wouldn't say it is a hack, but on the other hand requiring it for such a
feature feels wrong to me as well.
Some sysadmins also choose to disable SSH for security reasons, so it won't
work for them.
Isn't there an option to use PAM instead? Something similar?
This feature doesn't use PAM at all, it only uses NSS. Using PAM for
authentication requires a component with root permissions (be it the
program itself or an external binary with SUID permissions). We don't
have such thing. You can think of the SSH server as that external binary.
As for using local DB, I think it is a different feature than this one, so they
can both co-exist.
Oved
--
Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, planta
3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain
Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red Hat S.L.
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
