+1 on not forcing Operators to transition to something new twice, even if we did go for option 3.
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, johnthetubaguy On Fri, 26 May 2017 at 08:09, Belmiro Moreira < moreira.belmiro.email.li...@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 <joehu...@huawei.com> wrote: > >> I think a option 2 is better. >> >> Best Regards >> Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Lance Bragstad [lbrags...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* 25 May 2017 3:47 >> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); >> openstack-operat...@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 . >> >> *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! >> >> >>  >> https://github.com/openstack/keystone/blob/3d033df1c0fdc6cc9d2b02a702efca286371f2bd/etc/keystone.conf.sample#L2334-L2342 >> >> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Lance Bragstad <lbrags...@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 . The other introduces global role >>> assignments  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 . >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>>  http://adam.younglogic.com/2017/05/fixing-bug-96869/ >>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464763/ >>>  http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#Keystone_Policy_Meeting >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >> >> _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev