On 01/23/2014 12:24 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 01/22/2014 10:27 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 01/08/2014 04:49 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
Hello,
This adds "managed" permissions, the framework that will make our
default permissions merge IPA updates and user changes sanely.

There is no updater yet, nor does this add any actual managed
permissions, so there's no user-visible change (beyond help text and a
disabled option). To test the patch you might need to touch LDAP directly.

Ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4033
Design (no updater & plugin changes yet):
http://www.freeipa.org/page/V3/Managed_Read_permissions

0447 - Minor fixes.
0448 - Since you can't create managed permissions through the API, I
needed to get creative with the declarative tests. The tests will need a
custom function that adds a managed perm.
0449 - The change itself.

ping; any thoughts on this one?



1) 449, the comment:

+Deleting or renaming a managed permission, as well as changing its target,
+is not supported.
+""") + _("""

I am not sure that the phrase "not supported" is the right one. It sounds to me
like this is something we want to allow, just not implemented yet. IMO "is not
allowed" would be better.

Makes sense.

2) Can you add allow_mod_for_managed flag description to parameters.py?

+            flags={'no_create', 'allow_mod_for_managed'},

So far we try to add all flag descriptions there.

OK

3) When I updated the test to not delete the testperm, I tried to show the
managed permission and it is not entirely clear, see:

# ipa permission-show testperm
   Permission name: testperm
   Permissions: write
* Attributes: cn, o, sn
* Excluded attributes: cn, sn
   Bind rule type: all
   Subtree: cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com
   ACI target DN: uid=*,cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com
   Type: user
* Default attributes: l, o, cn
* Effective attributes: l, o

Well, this is a tradeoff between presenting what's stored in LDAP and what's in the ACI.

The "Attributes" mean actually attributes explicitly allowed by user, but it is
not obvious from the output.

Maybe it would be better to return only "Effective attributes" by default and
return the 3 source lists only when --all is passed. But this would require us
to let Command override LDAPObject's default_attributes, which framework cannot 
do.

Modifying default_attributes would not work because the 3 lists need to be loaded from LDAP to determine the effective attributes. It's possible to remove the extra attributes in the post_callback, postprocess_result already does similar output manipulation.

Alternatively, we may choose to use the attributes differently with managed
permissions:
- we add the new attributeType "ipaPermIncludedAttr". It would be used for the
user-specified whitelist of attributes instead of ipaPermAllowedAttr
- we do not use the ipaPermAllowedAttr with managed attributes at all or use it
for the "Effective attributes" list

My point is that the semantics of ipaPermAllowedAttr is different for managed
and non-managed permission, so it may confuse people.

Well, the semantics are always the same (effective = (default | allowed) - excluded). I agree that it can be confusing; perhaps I'm in too deep to judge how it looks from the outside.

For example, you may want
to search for all permissions that allow attribute "sn":

# ipa permission-find --attrs sn
---------------------
4 permissions matched
---------------------
   Permission name: anon
   Permissions: read
   Attributes: sn
   Bind rule type: anonymous
   Subtree: cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com
   ACI target DN: uid=*,cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com
   Type: user
...
   Permission name: testperm
   Permissions: write
   Attributes: cn, o, sn
   Excluded attributes: cn, sn
   Bind rule type: anonymous
   Subtree: cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com
   ACI target DN: uid=*,cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com
   Type: user
   Default attributes: l, o, cn
   Effective attributes: l, o
...

As you see, it matched both testperm and anon even though testperm does not
really allow sn as it excluded.

Thoughts?

Well, we could have default, included, excluded attributes stored in LDAP as now (using the name "included" instead of "allowed"), and make effective attributes (--attrs) into an updatable virtual attribute: when setting it, IPA would consult the "default" attributes and update "included"/"excluded" accordingly. (With non-managed permissions "default" is empty, so only "included" would be updated.) And searching on --attrs would construct an appropriate filter.

I thought about this approach earlier but thought that it obscured what's actually stored in LDAP. Given recent discussions I'm now thinking I shouldn't have rejected it.


--
PetrĀ³

_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Reply via email to