On 28/01/14 07:13 -0800, Georgy Okrokvertskhov wrote:
Hi,
From my experience context is usually bigger then just a storage for user
credentials and specifics of request. Context usually defines an area
within the called method should act. Probably the class name RequestContext
is a bit confusing. The actual goal of the context should be defined by a
service design. If you have a lot of independent components you will
probably will ned to pass a lot of parameters to specify specifics of work,
so it is just more convenient to have dictionary like object which carry
all necessary information about contextual information. This context can be
used to pass information between different components of the service.
I think we should be using the nova style objects for passing data
between solum services (they can be serialized for rpc). But you hit
on a point - this "context" needs to be called something else, it is
not a RequestContext (we need the RequestContext regardless).
I'd also suggest we don't build it until we know we
need it (I am just suspicious as the other openstack services I
have worked on don't have such a thing). Normally we just pass
arguments to methods.
How about we keep things simple and don't get
into designing a boeing, we can always add these things later if
they are really needed. I get the feeling we are being distracted from
our core problem of getting this service functional by "nice to
haves".
-Angus
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Angus Salkeld
<[email protected]>wrote:
On 27/01/14 22:53 +0000, Adrian Otto wrote:
On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Paul Montgomery <
[email protected]>
wrote:
Solum community,
I created several different approaches for community consideration
regarding Solum context, logging and data confidentiality. Two of these
approaches are documented here:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Solum/Logging
A) Plain Oslo Log/Config/Context is in the "Example of Oslo Log and Oslo
Context" section.
B) A hybrid Oslo Log/Config/Context but SecurityContext inherits the
RequestContext class and adds some confidentiality functions is in the
"Example of Oslo Log and Oslo Context Combined with SecurityContext"
section.
None of this code is production ready or tested by any means. Please
just
examine the general architecture before I polish too much.
I hope that this is enough information for us to agree on a path A or B.
I honestly am not tied to either path very tightly but it is time that we
reach a final decision on this topic IMO.
Thoughts?
I have a strong preference for using the SecurityContext approach. The
main reason for my preference is outlined in the Pro/Con sections of the
Wiki page. With the "A" approach, leakage of confidential information mint
happen with *any* future addition of a logging call, a discipline which may
be forgotten, or overlooked during future code reviews. The "B" approach
handles the classification of data not when logging, but when placing the
data into the SecurityContext. This is much safer from a long term
maintenance perspective.
I think we seperate this out into:
1) we need to be security aware whenever we log information handed to
us by the user. (I totally agree with this general statement)
2) should we log structured data, non structured data or use the
notification mechanism (which is structured)
There have been some talks at summit about the potential merging of
the logging and notification api, I honestly don't know what
happened to that but have no problem with structured logging. We
should use the notification system so that ceilometer can take
advantage of the events.
3) should we use a RequestContext in the spirit of the olso-incubator
(and inherited from it too). OR one different from all other
projects.
IMHO we should just use oslo-incubator RequestContext. Remember the
context is not a generic dumping ground for "I want to log stuff so
lets put it into the context". It is for user credentials and things
directly associated with the request (like the request_id). I don't
see why we need a generic dict style approach, this is more likely
to result in programming error context.set_priv('userid', bla)
instead of:
context.set_priv('user_id', bla)
I think my point is: We should very quickly zero in on the
attributes we need in the context and they will seldom change.
As far as security goes Paul has shown a good example of how to
change the logging_context_format_string to achieve structured and
secure logging of the context. oslo log module does not log whatever
is in the context but only what is configured in the solum.conf (via
logging_context_format_string). So I don't believe that the
new/different RequestContext provides any improved security.
-Angus
Adrian
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
--
Georgy Okrokvertskhov
Architect,
OpenStack Platform Products,
Mirantis
http://www.mirantis.com
Tel. +1 650 963 9828
Mob. +1 650 996 3284
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
