+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.


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 [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/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 [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-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

Reply via email to