Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] snapshot tool
Dmitry, I mean, currently shotgun fetches services' configuration along with astute.yaml. These files contain passwords, keys, tokens. I beleive, these should be sanitized. Or, better yet, there should be an option to sanitize sensitive data from fetched files. Aleksandr, Currently Fuel has a service non-root account with passwordless sudo enabled. This may change in the future (the passwordless part), however, now I don't see an issue there. Additionally, it is possible for users to configure sudo for the user-facing account however they like. In regards to have this tool to use a non-root accounts, there are 2 items: - execute commands, that require elevated privileges (the easy part -- user has to be able to execute these commands with sudo and without password) - copy files, that this user doesn't have read privileges for. For the second item, there are 2 possible solutions: 1. Give the non-root user read privileges for these files. Pros: - More straightforward, generally acceptable way Cons: - Requires additional implementation to give permissions to the user - (?) Not very extensible: to allow copying a new file, we'd have to first add it to the tool's config, and somehow implement adding read permissions 2. Somehow allow to copy these files with sudo. Pros: - More simple implementation: we'll just need to make sure that the user can do passwordless sudo - Extensible: to add more files, it's enough to just specify them in the tool's configuration. Cons: - Non-obvious, obscure way - Relies on having to be able to do something like "sudo cat /path/to/file", which is not much better that just giving the user read privileges. In fact, the only difference between this and giving the user the read rights is that it is possible to allow "sudo cat" for files, that don't yet exist, whereas giving permissions requires that these files already are on the filesystem. What way do you think is more appropriate? On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Aleksandr Dobdin <adob...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Dmitry, > > You can create a non-root user account without root privileges but you > need to add it to appropriate groups and configure sudo permissions (even > though you add this user to root group, it will fail with iptables command > for example) to get config files and launch requested commands.I suppose > that it is possible to note this possibility in the documentation and > provide a customer with detailed instructions on how to setup this user > account.There are some logs that will also be missing from the snapshot > with the message permission denied (only the root user has access to some > files with 0600 mask) > This user account could be specified into config.yaml (ssh -> opts option) > > Sincerely yours, > Aleksandr Dobdin > Senior Operations Engineer > Mirantis > Inc. > > > __ > 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 > > -- Dmitry Nikishov, Deployment Engineer, Mirantis, Inc. __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] snapshot tool
Hello, I've got a couple of questions: - What about this tool using non-root accounts to connect to OpenStack nodes? Currently, it seems to assume that it always is going to use "root" for SSH. - Shouldn't it sanitize all sensitive information (user names, host names, passwords, tokens, keys etc)? Thanks. On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Aleksandr Dobdin <adob...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hello team, > > I want to discuss the tool <https://github.com/adobdin/timmy> that we > have created for MOS as a replacement/alternative of shotgun. > > > >- > >The tool is based on >https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-diagnostics >- > >Should work fine on the following environments that were tested: 4.x, >5.x, 6.x, 7.0, 8.0 >- > >Operates non-destructively. >- > >Can be launched on any host within admin network, provided the fuel >node IP is specified and access is possible to Fuel and other nodes via ssh >from local system. >- > >Parallel launch, only on the nodes that are 'online'. Some filters for >nodes are also available. >- > >Commands (from ./cmds directory) are separated according to roles >(detected automatically) by the symlinks. Thus, the command list may depend >on release, roles and OS. In addition, there can be some commands that run >everywhere. There are also commands that are executed only on one node >according to its role, using the first node of this type they >encounter. >- > >Modular: possible to create a special package that contains only >certain required commands. >- > >Collects log files from the nodes using filters >- > >Some archives are created - general.tar.bz2 and logs-* >- > >checks are implemented to prevent filesystem filling due to log >collection, appropriate error shown. >- > >can be imported in other python scripts (ex. >https://github.com/f3flight/timmy-customtest) and used as a transport >and structure to access node parameters known to Fuel, run commands on >nodes, collect outputs, etc. with ease. > > > > Sincerely yours, > Aleksandr Dobdin > Senior Operations Engineer > Mirantis > Inc. > > __ > 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 > > -- Dmitry Nikishov, Deployment Engineer, Mirantis, Inc. __ 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
[openstack-dev] [Fuel][FFE] FF exception request for non-root accounts on slave nodes
Hello, I'd like to request a FF exception for "Run Fuel slave nodes as non-root" feature[1]. Current status: larger part of the feature is already merged[2] and some more patches[3][4][5][6] are expected to land before the FF. When these patches are in the master, Fuel 9.0 will be able to create non-root accounts on target nodes, however, root SSH will still be enabled. To change that we'll need actually to - Fix fuel-qa to be able to use non-root accounts [7]. - Fix ceph deployment by either merging [8] or waiting for community ceph module support. - Disable root SSH [9]. For that, we need 2.5 weeks after the FF to finish the feature. Risk of not delivering the feature after 2.5 weeks is low. Thanks. [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-nonroot-openstack-nodes [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+topic:bp-fuel-nonsuperuser [3] https://review.openstack.org/258200 [4] https://review.openstack.org/284682 [5] https://review.openstack.org/285299 [6] https://review.openstack.org/258671 [7] https://review.openstack.org/281776 [8] https://review.openstack.org/278953 [9] https://review.openstack.org/278954 -- Dmitry Nikishov, Deployment Engineer, Mirantis, Inc. __ 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
[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Disabling root SSH access to slave nodes.
Hello Fuelers, Due to a very large scope of the original bp/spec, it had to be split into 3 smaller ones. Currently, there is one blueprint[1] available. It covers root access to openstack nodes. It basically comes down to following: - Allow user to specify account name(s) to create and configure during initial system provisioning. - Set "PermitRootLogin no" on slave nodes during image build. - Fix stuff that breaks (incl. CI) This is targetted for 9.0. More information is available in the spec[2]. Please review and lets have a discussion. I expect to have POC patches available sometime next week. [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-nonroot-openstack-nodes [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243340 Thanks. -- Dmitry Nikishov, Deployment Engineer, Mirantis, Inc. __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Stanislaw, the reason why I'm considering splitting the blueprint is that along with implementing the feature, CI jobs and OSTF must be fixed as well. On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > thank you for an update. > I personally think that 2 and 3 must be done in one blueprint as it > related to master node only and 2 shouldn't be a rocket science. What you > mean by "Non-root accounts on slave nodes"? If we speak about disabling > root for ssh, creating new user and adding needed commands for him in > sudoers - I believe that it can be done in that blueprint too. If it is > something much bigger - it worth to be in separate blueprint. > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com> > wrote: > >> Folks, there is another spec update, please take a look: >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243340 >> >> I'm also considering splitting the blueprint/spec into smaller pieces: >> >> 1. Non-root accounts on slave nodes. >> 2. Non-root user account (fueladmin) on master node. >> 3. Running fuel services as non-superuser. >> 4. Running mcollective as non-root (tentative, still need a POC). >> >> Let me know what you think. >> >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Folks, I have updated a spec, please review: >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243340 >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Stanislaw, >>>> >>>> proposing patches could be a viable option long-term, however, by the >>>> time these patches will make it upstream, Fuel will use CentOS 7 w/ >>>> systemd. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dmitry, as we work on opensource - it would be really nice to propose >>>>> patches to upstream for non-Fuel services. But if it is not an option - >>>>> using puppet make sense to me. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Stanislaw, >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to clarify: there are 2 types of services, run on the Fuel >>>>>> node: >>>>>> - Those, which are a part of Fuel (astute, nailgun etc) >>>>>> - Those, which are not (e.g. atop) >>>>>> >>>>>> Capabilities for the former can easily be managed via post-install >>>>>> scripts, embedded in respective package spec file (since specs are a part >>>>>> of fuel-* repo). This is a very good idea. >>>>>> Capabilities for the latter will have to be taken care of via either >>>>>> a. some external utility (puppet) >>>>>> b. rebuilding respective package with updated spec >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd say that (a) is still more convinient. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another option would be to have a fine-grained control only on Fuel >>>>>> services and leave all the other at their defaults. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >>>>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dmitry, I just propose the way I think is right, because it's >>>>>>> strange enough - install package from *.deb file and then set any >>>>>>> privileges to it by third-party utility. Set permissions for app now >>>>>>> mostly >>>>>>> managed by post-install scripts. Moreover - if it isn't - it should, >>>>>>> cause >>>>>>> if you set capabilities by puppet there always will be a gap between >>>>>>> installation and setting permissions, so you will must bound package >>>>>>> installation process with setting permissions by puppet - other way you >>>>>>> will have no way to use your app. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Setting setuid bits on apps is not a good idea - it is why linux >>>>>>> capabilities were introduced. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>>>>
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Folks, there is another spec update, please take a look: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243340 I'm also considering splitting the blueprint/spec into smaller pieces: 1. Non-root accounts on slave nodes. 2. Non-root user account (fueladmin) on master node. 3. Running fuel services as non-superuser. 4. Running mcollective as non-root (tentative, still need a POC). Let me know what you think. On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Folks, I have updated a spec, please review: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243340 > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com> > wrote: > >> Stanislaw, >> >> proposing patches could be a viable option long-term, however, by the >> time these patches will make it upstream, Fuel will use CentOS 7 w/ systemd. >> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> Dmitry, as we work on opensource - it would be really nice to propose >>> patches to upstream for non-Fuel services. But if it is not an option - >>> using puppet make sense to me. >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Stanislaw, >>>> >>>> I want to clarify: there are 2 types of services, run on the Fuel node: >>>> - Those, which are a part of Fuel (astute, nailgun etc) >>>> - Those, which are not (e.g. atop) >>>> >>>> Capabilities for the former can easily be managed via post-install >>>> scripts, embedded in respective package spec file (since specs are a part >>>> of fuel-* repo). This is a very good idea. >>>> Capabilities for the latter will have to be taken care of via either >>>> a. some external utility (puppet) >>>> b. rebuilding respective package with updated spec >>>> >>>> I'd say that (a) is still more convinient. >>>> >>>> Another option would be to have a fine-grained control only on Fuel >>>> services and leave all the other at their defaults. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dmitry, I just propose the way I think is right, because it's strange >>>>> enough - install package from *.deb file and then set any privileges to it >>>>> by third-party utility. Set permissions for app now mostly managed by >>>>> post-install scripts. Moreover - if it isn't - it should, cause if you set >>>>> capabilities by puppet there always will be a gap between installation and >>>>> setting permissions, so you will must bound package installation process >>>>> with setting permissions by puppet - other way you will have no way to use >>>>> your app. >>>>> >>>>> Setting setuid bits on apps is not a good idea - it is why linux >>>>> capabilities were introduced. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Stanislaw, >>>>>> >>>>>> In my opinion the whole feature shouldn't be in the separate package >>>>>> simply because it will actually affect the code of many, if not all, >>>>>> components of Fuel. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only services whose capabilities will have to be managed by >>>>>> puppet are those, which are installed from upstream packages (e.g. atop) >>>>>> -- >>>>>> not built from fuel-* repos. >>>>>> >>>>>> Supervisord doesn't seem to use Linux capabilities, id does setuid >>>>>> instead: >>>>>> https://github.com/Supervisor/supervisor/blob/master/supervisor/options.py#L1326 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >>>>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dmitry, I mean whole feature. >>>>>>> Btw, why do you want to grant capabilities via puppet? It should be >>>>>>> done by post-install package section, I believe. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also I doesn't know if supervisord can bound process capabilities >>>>>>> like systemd can - we could use this opportunity too. >&
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Folks, I have updated a spec, please review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243340 On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Stanislaw, > > proposing patches could be a viable option long-term, however, by the time > these patches will make it upstream, Fuel will use CentOS 7 w/ systemd. > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < > sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> Dmitry, as we work on opensource - it would be really nice to propose >> patches to upstream for non-Fuel services. But if it is not an option - >> using puppet make sense to me. >> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Stanislaw, >>> >>> I want to clarify: there are 2 types of services, run on the Fuel node: >>> - Those, which are a part of Fuel (astute, nailgun etc) >>> - Those, which are not (e.g. atop) >>> >>> Capabilities for the former can easily be managed via post-install >>> scripts, embedded in respective package spec file (since specs are a part >>> of fuel-* repo). This is a very good idea. >>> Capabilities for the latter will have to be taken care of via either >>> a. some external utility (puppet) >>> b. rebuilding respective package with updated spec >>> >>> I'd say that (a) is still more convinient. >>> >>> Another option would be to have a fine-grained control only on Fuel >>> services and leave all the other at their defaults. >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dmitry, I just propose the way I think is right, because it's strange >>>> enough - install package from *.deb file and then set any privileges to it >>>> by third-party utility. Set permissions for app now mostly managed by >>>> post-install scripts. Moreover - if it isn't - it should, cause if you set >>>> capabilities by puppet there always will be a gap between installation and >>>> setting permissions, so you will must bound package installation process >>>> with setting permissions by puppet - other way you will have no way to use >>>> your app. >>>> >>>> Setting setuid bits on apps is not a good idea - it is why linux >>>> capabilities were introduced. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Stanislaw, >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion the whole feature shouldn't be in the separate package >>>>> simply because it will actually affect the code of many, if not all, >>>>> components of Fuel. >>>>> >>>>> The only services whose capabilities will have to be managed by puppet >>>>> are those, which are installed from upstream packages (e.g. atop) -- not >>>>> built from fuel-* repos. >>>>> >>>>> Supervisord doesn't seem to use Linux capabilities, id does setuid >>>>> instead: >>>>> https://github.com/Supervisor/supervisor/blob/master/supervisor/options.py#L1326 >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >>>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dmitry, I mean whole feature. >>>>>> Btw, why do you want to grant capabilities via puppet? It should be >>>>>> done by post-install package section, I believe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also I doesn't know if supervisord can bound process capabilities >>>>>> like systemd can - we could use this opportunity too. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> My main concern with using linux capabilities/acls on files is >>>>>>> actually puppet support or, actually, the lack of it. ACLs are possible >>>>>>> AFAIK, but we'd need to write a custom type/provider for capabilities. I >>>>>>> suggest to wait with capabilities support till systemd support. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stanislaw, do you mean the whole fe
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Stanislaw,
In my opinion the whole feature shouldn't be in the separate package simply
because it will actually affect the code of many, if not all, components of
Fuel.
The only services whose capabilities will have to be managed by puppet are
those, which are installed from upstream packages (e.g. atop) -- not built
from fuel-* repos.
Supervisord doesn't seem to use Linux capabilities, id does setuid instead:
https://github.com/Supervisor/supervisor/blob/master/supervisor/options.py#L1326
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <sbogat...@mirantis.com>
wrote:
> Dmitry, I mean whole feature.
> Btw, why do you want to grant capabilities via puppet? It should be done
> by post-install package section, I believe.
>
> Also I doesn't know if supervisord can bound process capabilities like
> systemd can - we could use this opportunity too.
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My main concern with using linux capabilities/acls on files is actually
>> puppet support or, actually, the lack of it. ACLs are possible AFAIK, but
>> we'd need to write a custom type/provider for capabilities. I suggest to
>> wait with capabilities support till systemd support.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Stanislaw, do you mean the whole feature, or just a user? Since feature
>>> would require actually changing puppet code.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:08 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dmitry, I believe it should be done via package spec as a part of
>>>> installation.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have updated the spec, please review and share your thoughts on it:
>>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243340/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthew,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sorry, didn't mean to butcher your name :(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matther,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I totally agree that each daemon should have it's own user which
>>>>>>> should be created during installation of the relevant package. Probably
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> didn't state this clear enough in the spec.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, there are security requirements in place that root should
>>>>>>> not be used at all. This means that there should be a some kind of
>>>>>>> maintenance or system user ('fueladmin'), which would have enough
>>>>>>> privileges to configure and manage Fuel node (e.g. run "sudo puppet
>>>>>>> apply"
>>>>>>> without password, create mirrors etc). This also means that certain
>>>>>>> fuel-
>>>>>>> packages would be required to have their files accessible to that user.
>>>>>>> That's the idea behind having a package which would create 'fueladmin'
>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>> and including it into other fuel- packages requirements lists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So this part of the feature comes down to having a non-root user
>>>>>>> with sudo privileges and passwordless sudo for certain commands (like
>>>>>>> 'puppet apply ') for scripting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Mosesohn <
>>>>>>> mmoses...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We really shouldn't put "user" creation into a single package and
>>>>>>>> then depend on it for daemons. If we want nailgun service to run as
>>>>>>>> nailgun
>>>>>>>> user, it should be created in the fuel-nailgun package.
>>>>>>>> I think it makes the most sense to
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Stanislaw, I want to clarify: there are 2 types of services, run on the Fuel node: - Those, which are a part of Fuel (astute, nailgun etc) - Those, which are not (e.g. atop) Capabilities for the former can easily be managed via post-install scripts, embedded in respective package spec file (since specs are a part of fuel-* repo). This is a very good idea. Capabilities for the latter will have to be taken care of via either a. some external utility (puppet) b. rebuilding respective package with updated spec I'd say that (a) is still more convinient. Another option would be to have a fine-grained control only on Fuel services and leave all the other at their defaults. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Dmitry, I just propose the way I think is right, because it's strange > enough - install package from *.deb file and then set any privileges to it > by third-party utility. Set permissions for app now mostly managed by > post-install scripts. Moreover - if it isn't - it should, cause if you set > capabilities by puppet there always will be a gap between installation and > setting permissions, so you will must bound package installation process > with setting permissions by puppet - other way you will have no way to use > your app. > > Setting setuid bits on apps is not a good idea - it is why linux > capabilities were introduced. > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com> > wrote: > >> Stanislaw, >> >> In my opinion the whole feature shouldn't be in the separate package >> simply because it will actually affect the code of many, if not all, >> components of Fuel. >> >> The only services whose capabilities will have to be managed by puppet >> are those, which are installed from upstream packages (e.g. atop) -- not >> built from fuel-* repos. >> >> Supervisord doesn't seem to use Linux capabilities, id does setuid >> instead: >> https://github.com/Supervisor/supervisor/blob/master/supervisor/options.py#L1326 >> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> Dmitry, I mean whole feature. >>> Btw, why do you want to grant capabilities via puppet? It should be done >>> by post-install package section, I believe. >>> >>> Also I doesn't know if supervisord can bound process capabilities like >>> systemd can - we could use this opportunity too. >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> My main concern with using linux capabilities/acls on files is actually >>>> puppet support or, actually, the lack of it. ACLs are possible AFAIK, but >>>> we'd need to write a custom type/provider for capabilities. I suggest to >>>> wait with capabilities support till systemd support. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Stanislaw, do you mean the whole feature, or just a user? Since >>>>> feature would require actually changing puppet code. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:08 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >>>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dmitry, I believe it should be done via package spec as a part of >>>>>> installation. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have updated the spec, please review and share your thoughts on >>>>>>> it: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243340/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Matthew, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sorry, didn't mean to butcher your name :( >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Matther, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I totally agree that each daemon should have it's own user which >
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Stanislaw, proposing patches could be a viable option long-term, however, by the time these patches will make it upstream, Fuel will use CentOS 7 w/ systemd. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Dmitry, as we work on opensource - it would be really nice to propose > patches to upstream for non-Fuel services. But if it is not an option - > using puppet make sense to me. > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com> > wrote: > >> Stanislaw, >> >> I want to clarify: there are 2 types of services, run on the Fuel node: >> - Those, which are a part of Fuel (astute, nailgun etc) >> - Those, which are not (e.g. atop) >> >> Capabilities for the former can easily be managed via post-install >> scripts, embedded in respective package spec file (since specs are a part >> of fuel-* repo). This is a very good idea. >> Capabilities for the latter will have to be taken care of via either >> a. some external utility (puppet) >> b. rebuilding respective package with updated spec >> >> I'd say that (a) is still more convinient. >> >> Another option would be to have a fine-grained control only on Fuel >> services and leave all the other at their defaults. >> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> Dmitry, I just propose the way I think is right, because it's strange >>> enough - install package from *.deb file and then set any privileges to it >>> by third-party utility. Set permissions for app now mostly managed by >>> post-install scripts. Moreover - if it isn't - it should, cause if you set >>> capabilities by puppet there always will be a gap between installation and >>> setting permissions, so you will must bound package installation process >>> with setting permissions by puppet - other way you will have no way to use >>> your app. >>> >>> Setting setuid bits on apps is not a good idea - it is why linux >>> capabilities were introduced. >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Stanislaw, >>>> >>>> In my opinion the whole feature shouldn't be in the separate package >>>> simply because it will actually affect the code of many, if not all, >>>> components of Fuel. >>>> >>>> The only services whose capabilities will have to be managed by puppet >>>> are those, which are installed from upstream packages (e.g. atop) -- not >>>> built from fuel-* repos. >>>> >>>> Supervisord doesn't seem to use Linux capabilities, id does setuid >>>> instead: >>>> https://github.com/Supervisor/supervisor/blob/master/supervisor/options.py#L1326 >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dmitry, I mean whole feature. >>>>> Btw, why do you want to grant capabilities via puppet? It should be >>>>> done by post-install package section, I believe. >>>>> >>>>> Also I doesn't know if supervisord can bound process capabilities like >>>>> systemd can - we could use this opportunity too. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> My main concern with using linux capabilities/acls on files is >>>>>> actually puppet support or, actually, the lack of it. ACLs are possible >>>>>> AFAIK, but we'd need to write a custom type/provider for capabilities. I >>>>>> suggest to wait with capabilities support till systemd support. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Stanislaw, do you mean the whole feature, or just a user? Since >>>>>>> feature would require actually changing puppet code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:08 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >>>>>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dmitry, I believe it should be done via package spec as a part of >>>>>>>> installation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>&g
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
My main concern with using linux capabilities/acls on files is actually
puppet support or, actually, the lack of it. ACLs are possible AFAIK, but
we'd need to write a custom type/provider for capabilities. I suggest to
wait with capabilities support till systemd support.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com>
wrote:
> Stanislaw, do you mean the whole feature, or just a user? Since feature
> would require actually changing puppet code.
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:08 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Dmitry, I believe it should be done via package spec as a part of
>> installation.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello folks,
>>>
>>> I have updated the spec, please review and share your thoughts on it:
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243340/
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matthew,
>>>>
>>>> sorry, didn't mean to butcher your name :(
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Matther,
>>>>>
>>>>> I totally agree that each daemon should have it's own user which
>>>>> should be created during installation of the relevant package. Probably I
>>>>> didn't state this clear enough in the spec.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, there are security requirements in place that root should not
>>>>> be used at all. This means that there should be a some kind of maintenance
>>>>> or system user ('fueladmin'), which would have enough privileges to
>>>>> configure and manage Fuel node (e.g. run "sudo puppet apply" without
>>>>> password, create mirrors etc). This also means that certain fuel- packages
>>>>> would be required to have their files accessible to that user. That's the
>>>>> idea behind having a package which would create 'fueladmin' user and
>>>>> including it into other fuel- packages requirements lists.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this part of the feature comes down to having a non-root user with
>>>>> sudo privileges and passwordless sudo for certain commands (like 'puppet
>>>>> apply ') for scripting.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Mosesohn <
>>>>> mmoses...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dmitry,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We really shouldn't put "user" creation into a single package and
>>>>>> then depend on it for daemons. If we want nailgun service to run as
>>>>>> nailgun
>>>>>> user, it should be created in the fuel-nailgun package.
>>>>>> I think it makes the most sense to create multiple users, one for
>>>>>> each service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lastly, it makes a lot of sense to tie a "fuel" CLI user to
>>>>>> python-fuelclient package.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stanislaw,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that this approch would work well. However, does Puppet
>>>>>>> allow managing capabilities and/or file ACLs? Or can they be easily set
>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>> when installing RPM package? (is there a way to specify
>>>>>>> capabilities/ACLs
>>>>>>> in the RPM spec file?) This doesn't seem to be supported out of the box.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm going to research if it is possible to manage capabilities and
>>>>>>> ACLs with what we have out of the box (RPM, Puppet).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>>>>>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dmitry, I propose to give needed linux capabilities
>>>>>>>> (like CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE) to processes (services) which needs them
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> then start these proce
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Stanislaw, do you mean the whole feature, or just a user? Since feature
would require actually changing puppet code.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:08 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <sbogat...@mirantis.com>
wrote:
> Dmitry, I believe it should be done via package spec as a part of
> installation.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> I have updated the spec, please review and share your thoughts on it:
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243340/
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Matthew,
>>>
>>> sorry, didn't mean to butcher your name :(
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matther,
>>>>
>>>> I totally agree that each daemon should have it's own user which should
>>>> be created during installation of the relevant package. Probably I didn't
>>>> state this clear enough in the spec.
>>>>
>>>> However, there are security requirements in place that root should not
>>>> be used at all. This means that there should be a some kind of maintenance
>>>> or system user ('fueladmin'), which would have enough privileges to
>>>> configure and manage Fuel node (e.g. run "sudo puppet apply" without
>>>> password, create mirrors etc). This also means that certain fuel- packages
>>>> would be required to have their files accessible to that user. That's the
>>>> idea behind having a package which would create 'fueladmin' user and
>>>> including it into other fuel- packages requirements lists.
>>>>
>>>> So this part of the feature comes down to having a non-root user with
>>>> sudo privileges and passwordless sudo for certain commands (like 'puppet
>>>> apply ') for scripting.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Mosesohn <
>>>> mmoses...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dmitry,
>>>>>
>>>>> We really shouldn't put "user" creation into a single package and then
>>>>> depend on it for daemons. If we want nailgun service to run as nailgun
>>>>> user, it should be created in the fuel-nailgun package.
>>>>> I think it makes the most sense to create multiple users, one for each
>>>>> service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, it makes a lot of sense to tie a "fuel" CLI user to
>>>>> python-fuelclient package.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stanislaw,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that this approch would work well. However, does Puppet allow
>>>>>> managing capabilities and/or file ACLs? Or can they be easily set up when
>>>>>> installing RPM package? (is there a way to specify capabilities/ACLs in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> RPM spec file?) This doesn't seem to be supported out of the box.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to research if it is possible to manage capabilities and
>>>>>> ACLs with what we have out of the box (RPM, Puppet).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>>>>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dmitry, I propose to give needed linux capabilities
>>>>>>> (like CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE) to processes (services) which needs them and
>>>>>>> then start these processes from non-privileged user. It will give you
>>>>>>> ability to run each process without 'sudo' at all with well fine-grained
>>>>>>> permissions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stanislaw,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been experimenting with 'capsh' on the 6.1 master node and it
>>>>>>>> doesn't seem to preserve any capabilities when setting SECURE_NOROOT
>>>>>>>> bit,
>>>>>>>> even if explicitely told to do so
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Hello folks,
I have updated the spec, please review and share your thoughts on it:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243340/
Thanks.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com>
wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> sorry, didn't mean to butcher your name :(
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Matther,
>>
>> I totally agree that each daemon should have it's own user which should
>> be created during installation of the relevant package. Probably I didn't
>> state this clear enough in the spec.
>>
>> However, there are security requirements in place that root should not be
>> used at all. This means that there should be a some kind of maintenance or
>> system user ('fueladmin'), which would have enough privileges to configure
>> and manage Fuel node (e.g. run "sudo puppet apply" without password, create
>> mirrors etc). This also means that certain fuel- packages would be required
>> to have their files accessible to that user. That's the idea behind having
>> a package which would create 'fueladmin' user and including it into other
>> fuel- packages requirements lists.
>>
>> So this part of the feature comes down to having a non-root user with
>> sudo privileges and passwordless sudo for certain commands (like 'puppet
>> apply ') for scripting.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Mosesohn <mmoses...@mirantis.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Dmitry,
>>>
>>> We really shouldn't put "user" creation into a single package and then
>>> depend on it for daemons. If we want nailgun service to run as nailgun
>>> user, it should be created in the fuel-nailgun package.
>>> I think it makes the most sense to create multiple users, one for each
>>> service.
>>>
>>> Lastly, it makes a lot of sense to tie a "fuel" CLI user to
>>> python-fuelclient package.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stanislaw,
>>>>
>>>> I agree that this approch would work well. However, does Puppet allow
>>>> managing capabilities and/or file ACLs? Or can they be easily set up when
>>>> installing RPM package? (is there a way to specify capabilities/ACLs in the
>>>> RPM spec file?) This doesn't seem to be supported out of the box.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to research if it is possible to manage capabilities and
>>>> ACLs with what we have out of the box (RPM, Puppet).
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dmitry, I propose to give needed linux capabilities
>>>>> (like CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE) to processes (services) which needs them and
>>>>> then start these processes from non-privileged user. It will give you
>>>>> ability to run each process without 'sudo' at all with well fine-grained
>>>>> permissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stanislaw,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been experimenting with 'capsh' on the 6.1 master node and it
>>>>>> doesn't seem to preserve any capabilities when setting SECURE_NOROOT bit,
>>>>>> even if explicitely told to do so (via either --keep=1 or
>>>>>> "SECURE_KEEP_CAPS" bit).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bartolomiej, Adam,
>>>>>>> Stanislaw is correct. And this is going to be ported to master. The
>>>>>>> goal currently is to reach an agreement on the implementation so that
>>>>>>> there's going to be a some kinf of compatibility during upgrades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stanislaw,
>>>>>>> Do I understand correctly that you propose using something like
>>>>>>> sucap to launch from root, switch to a different user and then drop
>>>>>>> capabilities which are not required?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>>>>>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
&g
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Stanislaw, I agree that this approch would work well. However, does Puppet allow managing capabilities and/or file ACLs? Or can they be easily set up when installing RPM package? (is there a way to specify capabilities/ACLs in the RPM spec file?) This doesn't seem to be supported out of the box. I'm going to research if it is possible to manage capabilities and ACLs with what we have out of the box (RPM, Puppet). On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Dmitry, I propose to give needed linux capabilities > (like CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE) to processes (services) which needs them and > then start these processes from non-privileged user. It will give you > ability to run each process without 'sudo' at all with well fine-grained > permissions. > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com> > wrote: > >> Stanislaw, >> >> I've been experimenting with 'capsh' on the 6.1 master node and it >> doesn't seem to preserve any capabilities when setting SECURE_NOROOT bit, >> even if explicitely told to do so (via either --keep=1 or >> "SECURE_KEEP_CAPS" bit). >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Bartolomiej, Adam, >>> Stanislaw is correct. And this is going to be ported to master. The goal >>> currently is to reach an agreement on the implementation so that there's >>> going to be a some kinf of compatibility during upgrades. >>> >>> Stanislaw, >>> Do I understand correctly that you propose using something like sucap to >>> launch from root, switch to a different user and then drop capabilities >>> which are not required? >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < >>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Bartolomiej, it's customer-related patches, they, I think, have to be >>>> done for 6.1 prior to 8+ release. >>>> >>>> Dmitry, it's nice to hear about it. Did you consider to use linux >>>> capabilities on fuel-related processes instead of just using non-extended >>>> POSIX privileged/non-privileged permission checks? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Bartlomiej Piotrowski < >>>> bpiotrow...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> We don't develop features for already released versions… It should be >>>>> done for master instead. >>>>> >>>>> BP >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Adam Heczko <ahec...@mirantis.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dmitry, >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you plan to port your patchset to future Fuel releases? >>>>>> >>>>>> A. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey guys. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've been working on making Fuel not to rely on superuser privileges >>>>>>> at least for day-to-day operations. These include: >>>>>>> a) running Fuel services (nailgun, astute etc) >>>>>>> b) user operations (create env, deploy, update, log in) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason for this is that many security policies simply do not >>>>>>> allow root access (especially remote) to servers/environments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This feature/enhancement means that anything that currently is being >>>>>>> run under root, will be evaluated and, if possible, put under a >>>>>>> non-privileged >>>>>>> user. This also means that remote root access will be disabled. >>>>>>> Instead, users will have to log in with "fueladmin" user. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Together with Omar we've put together a blueprint[0] >>>>>>> and a >>>>>>> spec[1] for this feature. I've been developing this for Fuel 6.1, so >>>>>>> there >>>>>>> are two patches into fuel-main[2] and fuel-library[3] that can give >>>>>>> you an >>>>>>> impression of current approach. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These patches do following: >>>&g
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Matther,
I totally agree that each daemon should have it's own user which should be
created during installation of the relevant package. Probably I didn't
state this clear enough in the spec.
However, there are security requirements in place that root should not be
used at all. This means that there should be a some kind of maintenance or
system user ('fueladmin'), which would have enough privileges to configure
and manage Fuel node (e.g. run "sudo puppet apply" without password, create
mirrors etc). This also means that certain fuel- packages would be required
to have their files accessible to that user. That's the idea behind having
a package which would create 'fueladmin' user and including it into other
fuel- packages requirements lists.
So this part of the feature comes down to having a non-root user with sudo
privileges and passwordless sudo for certain commands (like 'puppet apply
') for scripting.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Mosesohn <mmoses...@mirantis.com>
wrote:
> Dmitry,
>
> We really shouldn't put "user" creation into a single package and then
> depend on it for daemons. If we want nailgun service to run as nailgun
> user, it should be created in the fuel-nailgun package.
> I think it makes the most sense to create multiple users, one for each
> service.
>
> Lastly, it makes a lot of sense to tie a "fuel" CLI user to
> python-fuelclient package.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Stanislaw,
>>
>> I agree that this approch would work well. However, does Puppet allow
>> managing capabilities and/or file ACLs? Or can they be easily set up when
>> installing RPM package? (is there a way to specify capabilities/ACLs in the
>> RPM spec file?) This doesn't seem to be supported out of the box.
>>
>> I'm going to research if it is possible to manage capabilities and ACLs
>> with what we have out of the box (RPM, Puppet).
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dmitry, I propose to give needed linux capabilities
>>> (like CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE) to processes (services) which needs them and
>>> then start these processes from non-privileged user. It will give you
>>> ability to run each process without 'sudo' at all with well fine-grained
>>> permissions.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stanislaw,
>>>>
>>>> I've been experimenting with 'capsh' on the 6.1 master node and it
>>>> doesn't seem to preserve any capabilities when setting SECURE_NOROOT bit,
>>>> even if explicitely told to do so (via either --keep=1 or
>>>> "SECURE_KEEP_CAPS" bit).
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <
>>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bartolomiej, Adam,
>>>>> Stanislaw is correct. And this is going to be ported to master. The
>>>>> goal currently is to reach an agreement on the implementation so that
>>>>> there's going to be a some kinf of compatibility during upgrades.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stanislaw,
>>>>> Do I understand correctly that you propose using something like sucap
>>>>> to launch from root, switch to a different user and then drop capabilities
>>>>> which are not required?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>>>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bartolomiej, it's customer-related patches, they, I think, have to be
>>>>>> done for 6.1 prior to 8+ release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dmitry, it's nice to hear about it. Did you consider to use linux
>>>>>> capabilities on fuel-related processes instead of just using non-extended
>>>>>> POSIX privileged/non-privileged permission checks?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Bartlomiej Piotrowski <
>>>>>> bpiotrow...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We don't develop features for already released versions… It should
>>>>>>> be done for master instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Adam Heczko <ahec...@mirantis.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>&
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Bartolomiej, Adam, Stanislaw is correct. And this is going to be ported to master. The goal currently is to reach an agreement on the implementation so that there's going to be a some kinf of compatibility during upgrades. Stanislaw, Do I understand correctly that you propose using something like sucap to launch from root, switch to a different user and then drop capabilities which are not required? On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Bartolomiej, it's customer-related patches, they, I think, have to be done > for 6.1 prior to 8+ release. > > Dmitry, it's nice to hear about it. Did you consider to use linux > capabilities on fuel-related processes instead of just using non-extended > POSIX privileged/non-privileged permission checks? > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Bartlomiej Piotrowski < > bpiotrow...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> We don't develop features for already released versions… It should be >> done for master instead. >> >> BP >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Adam Heczko <ahec...@mirantis.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Dmitry, >>> +1 >>> >>> Do you plan to port your patchset to future Fuel releases? >>> >>> A. >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey guys. >>>> >>>> I've been working on making Fuel not to rely on superuser privileges >>>> at least for day-to-day operations. These include: >>>> a) running Fuel services (nailgun, astute etc) >>>> b) user operations (create env, deploy, update, log in) >>>> >>>> The reason for this is that many security policies simply do not >>>> allow root access (especially remote) to servers/environments. >>>> >>>> This feature/enhancement means that anything that currently is being >>>> run under root, will be evaluated and, if possible, put under a >>>> non-privileged >>>> user. This also means that remote root access will be disabled. >>>> Instead, users will have to log in with "fueladmin" user. >>>> >>>> Together with Omar we've put together a blueprint[0] and a >>>> spec[1] for this feature. I've been developing this for Fuel 6.1, so >>>> there >>>> are two patches into fuel-main[2] and fuel-library[3] that can give you >>>> an >>>> impression of current approach. >>>> >>>> These patches do following: >>>> - Add fuel-admin-user package, which creates 'fueladmin' >>>> - Make all other fuel-* packages depend on fuel-admin-user >>>> - Put supervisord under 'fueladmin' user. >>>> >>>> Please review the spec/patches and let's have a discussion on the >>>> approach to >>>> this feature. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> [0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-nonsuperuser >>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/243340 >>>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/243337 >>>> [3] https://review.openstack.org/243313 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dmitry Nikishov, >>>> Deployment Engineer, >>>> Mirantis, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> __ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Adam Heczko >>> Security Engineer @ Mirantis Inc. >>> >>> >>> ______ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> __ >> 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 >> >> > > __ > 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 > > -- Dmitry Nikishov, Deployment Engineer, Mirantis, Inc. __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Stanislaw, I've been experimenting with 'capsh' on the 6.1 master node and it doesn't seem to preserve any capabilities when setting SECURE_NOROOT bit, even if explicitely told to do so (via either --keep=1 or "SECURE_KEEP_CAPS" bit). On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Dmitry Nikishov <dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Bartolomiej, Adam, > Stanislaw is correct. And this is going to be ported to master. The goal > currently is to reach an agreement on the implementation so that there's > going to be a some kinf of compatibility during upgrades. > > Stanislaw, > Do I understand correctly that you propose using something like sucap to > launch from root, switch to a different user and then drop capabilities > which are not required? > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < > sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> Bartolomiej, it's customer-related patches, they, I think, have to be >> done for 6.1 prior to 8+ release. >> >> Dmitry, it's nice to hear about it. Did you consider to use linux >> capabilities on fuel-related processes instead of just using non-extended >> POSIX privileged/non-privileged permission checks? >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Bartlomiej Piotrowski < >> bpiotrow...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> We don't develop features for already released versions… It should be >>> done for master instead. >>> >>> BP >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Adam Heczko <ahec...@mirantis.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dmitry, >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Do you plan to port your patchset to future Fuel releases? >>>> >>>> A. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Dmitry Nikishov < >>>> dnikis...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey guys. >>>>> >>>>> I've been working on making Fuel not to rely on superuser privileges >>>>> at least for day-to-day operations. These include: >>>>> a) running Fuel services (nailgun, astute etc) >>>>> b) user operations (create env, deploy, update, log in) >>>>> >>>>> The reason for this is that many security policies simply do not >>>>> allow root access (especially remote) to servers/environments. >>>>> >>>>> This feature/enhancement means that anything that currently is being >>>>> run under root, will be evaluated and, if possible, put under a >>>>> non-privileged >>>>> user. This also means that remote root access will be disabled. >>>>> Instead, users will have to log in with "fueladmin" user. >>>>> >>>>> Together with Omar we've put together a blueprint[0] and a >>>>> spec[1] for this feature. I've been developing this for Fuel 6.1, so >>>>> there >>>>> are two patches into fuel-main[2] and fuel-library[3] that can give >>>>> you an >>>>> impression of current approach. >>>>> >>>>> These patches do following: >>>>> - Add fuel-admin-user package, which creates 'fueladmin' >>>>> - Make all other fuel-* packages depend on fuel-admin-user >>>>> - Put supervisord under 'fueladmin' user. >>>>> >>>>> Please review the spec/patches and let's have a discussion on the >>>>> approach to >>>>> this feature. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> [0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-nonsuperuser >>>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/243340 >>>>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/243337 >>>>> [3] https://review.openstack.org/243313 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dmitry Nikishov, >>>>> Deployment Engineer, >>>>> Mirantis, Inc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Adam Heczko >>>> Security Engineer @ Mirantis Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>>
[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Running Fuel node as non-superuser
Hey guys. I've been working on making Fuel not to rely on superuser privileges at least for day-to-day operations. These include: a) running Fuel services (nailgun, astute etc) b) user operations (create env, deploy, update, log in) The reason for this is that many security policies simply do not allow root access (especially remote) to servers/environments. This feature/enhancement means that anything that currently is being run under root, will be evaluated and, if possible, put under a non-privileged user. This also means that remote root access will be disabled. Instead, users will have to log in with "fueladmin" user. Together with Omar we've put together a blueprint[0] and a spec[1] for this feature. I've been developing this for Fuel 6.1, so there are two patches into fuel-main[2] and fuel-library[3] that can give you an impression of current approach. These patches do following: - Add fuel-admin-user package, which creates 'fueladmin' - Make all other fuel-* packages depend on fuel-admin-user - Put supervisord under 'fueladmin' user. Please review the spec/patches and let's have a discussion on the approach to this feature. Thank you. [0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-nonsuperuser [1] https://review.openstack.org/243340 [2] https://review.openstack.org/243337 [3] https://review.openstack.org/243313 -- Dmitry Nikishov, Deployment Engineer, Mirantis, Inc. __ 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
