Hi Tim, All, I was in the discussion yesterday (kudva), and would like to start gradually contributing to the code base. So, this discussion below is based on my limited exploration of Congress code, running it. I am trying some small pieces to implement to familiarize. Please view it as such. As I start adding code, I am sure, my thoughts will be more evolved. I agree with the three types you outline. I also agree that these will grow. We are already thinking of expanding congress for various other types of policies. But those would be a manageable start. Regarding the comment below. I was wondering if all conditions, and actions could be both: 1. python functions (for conditions they eval 2. policy primitives. The advantage of 1, is that it is just executed and a True or False returned by Python for conditions. For actions, python functions are executed to respond to conditions. This controls the growth of policies and adding more primitives, and makes it flexible (say to use alarms, monitors, os clients, nova actions etc). The advantage of 2, is the ability to use unification (as in unify.py) and do some logic reduction. This gives us the full strength of extensive and mature logic reasoning and reduction methods. One possibility is that it checks which one the two it is and does the appropriate evaluation for condition and action. >There are drawbacks to this proposal as well. >- We will have 3 separate >policies that are conceptually very similar. As the policies grow larger, it >will become >increasingly difficult to keep the policies synchronized. This >problem can be mitigated to some extent by having >all 3 share a library of >policy statements that they all apply in different ways (and such a library >mechanism is >already implemented). >- As cloud services change their >behavior, policies may need to be re-written. For example, right now Nova >does >not consult Congress before creating a VM; thus, to enforce policy >surrounding VMs, the best we could do is >write a Condition-Action policy that >adjusts VM configuration when it learns about new VMs being created. If we >>later make Nova consult with Congress before creating a VM, we need to write >an Access-control policy that puts >the proper controls in place. Thanks, Prabhakar Kudva
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:05:23 -0700 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [openstack-dev] [Congress] Policy types Hi all, We started a discussion on IRC yesterday that I'd like to continue. The main question is what kind of policy does a Congress user actually write? I can see three options. The first two focus on actions (API calls that make changes to the state of the cloud) and the last focuses on just the cloud state. (By "state of the cloud" I mean all the information Congress can see about all the cloud services it is managing, e.g. all the information we can get through API calls to Nova, Neutron, Cinder, Heat, ...). 1) Access Control (e.g. Linux, XACML, AD): which *actions* can be performed by other cloud services (for each state of the cloud)2) Condition Action: which *actions* Congress should execute (for each state of the cloud)3) Classification (currently supported in Congress): which *states* violate real-world policy. [For those of you who have read docs/white-papers/etc. I'm using "Classification" in this note to mean the combination of the current "Classification" and "Action Description" policies.] The important observation is that each of these policies could contain different information from each of the others. - Access Control vs Condition Action. The Access Control policy tells *other cloud services* which actions they are *allowed* to execute. The Condition Action policy tells *Congress* which actions it *must* execute. These policies differ because they constrain different sets of cloud services. - Access Control vs. Classification. The Access Control policy might permit some users to violate the Classification policy in some situations (e.g. to fix violation A, we might need to cause violation B before eliminating both). These policies differ because a violation in one policy might be be a violation in the other. - Classification vs. Condition Action. The Classification policy might imply which actions *could* eliminate a given violation, but the Condition Action policy would dictate which of those actions *should* be executed (e.g. the Classification policy might tell us that disconnecting a network and deleting a VM would both eliminate a particular violation, but the Condition Action policy would tell us which to choose). And the Condition Action policy need not eliminate all the violations present in the Classification policy. Again these policies differ because a violation in one policy might not be a violation in the other. I'm proposing that for the first release of Congress we support all 3 of these policies. When a user inserts/deletes a policy statement, she chooses which policy it belongs to. All would be written in basically the same syntax but would be used in 3 different scenarios: - Prevention: If a component wants to consult Congress before taking action to see if that action is allowed, Congress checks the Access Control policy. - Reaction: When Congress learns of a change in the cloud's state, it checks the Condition Action policy to see which actions should be executed (if any). - Monitoring: If a user wants to simply check if the cloud's state is in compliance and monitor compliance over time, she writes and queries the Classification policy. There are several benefits to this proposal.- It allows users to choose any of the policy types, if they only want one of them. From our discussions with potential users, most seem to want one of these 3 policy types (and are uninterested in the others).- It makes the introduction to Congress relatively simple. We describe 3 different uses of policy (Prevention, Reaction, Monitoring) and then explain which policy to use in which case.- This allows us to focus on implementing a single policy-engine technology (a Datalog policy language and evaluation algorithms), which gives us the opportunity to make it solid. There are drawbacks to this proposal as well. - We will have 3 separate policies that are conceptually very similar. As the policies grow larger, it will become increasingly difficult to keep the policies synchronized. This problem can be mitigated to some extent by having all 3 share a library of policy statements that they all apply in different ways (and such a library mechanism is already implemented). - As cloud services change their behavior, policies may need to be re-written. For example, right now Nova does not consult Congress before creating a VM; thus, to enforce policy surrounding VMs, the best we could do is write a Condition-Action policy that adjusts VM configuration when it learns about new VMs being created. If we later make Nova consult with Congress before creating a VM, we need to write an Access-control policy that puts the proper controls in place. These drawbacks were the original motivation for supporting only the Classification policy and attempting to derive the Access Control and Condition Action policies from it. But given that we can't always derive the proper Access Control and Condition Action policies from the Classification policy, we will eventually need support for all 3. In addition, the technical complexity of supporting all 3 is much lower than supporting just the Classification policy and deriving the others. I'll stop there for now. Comments, thoughts, questions?Tim _______________________________________________ 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
