Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Evgeniy L]

Vladimir,

What Andrew is saying is we should copy some specific keys to some
specific roles, and it's easy to do even now, just create several role
specific
tasks and copy required keys.
Deployment engineer who knows which keys are required for which roles
can do that.

What you are saying is we should have some way to restrict task from
getting information it wants, it is separate huge topic, because it requires
to create polices which plugin developer should describe to get access to
the data, as it's done for iOS/Android, also it's not so easy to do
sandboxing
when task can execute any shell command on any node.

Thanks,

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
wrote:

> Andrew
>
> +1 to it - I provided these concerns to guys that we should not ship data
> to tasks that do not need it. It will make us able to increase security for
> pluggable architecture
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Andrew Woodward  wrote:
>
>> Cool, You guys read my mind o.O
>>
>> RE: the review. We need to avoid copying the secrets to nodes that don't
>> require them. I think it might be too soon to be able to make granular
>> tasks based for this, but we need to move that way.
>>
>> Also, how are the astute tasks read into the environment? Same as with
>> the others?
>>
>>> fuel rel --sync-deployment-tasks
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> It looks like what you've described is already done for ssh keys [1].
>>>
>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/149543/
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 to Andrew

 This is actually what we want to do with SSL keys.

 On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Andrew Woodward 
 wrote:

> We need to be highly security conscious here doing this in an insecure
> manner is a HUGE risk so rsync over ssh from the master node is usually 
> (or
> scp) OK but rsync protocol from the node in the cluster will not be BAD 
> (it
> leaves the certs exposed on an weak service.)
>
> I could see this being implemented as some additional task type that
> can instead be run on the fuel master nodes instead of a target node. This
> could also be useful for plugin writers that may need to access some
> external API as part of their task graph. We'd need some way to make the
> generate task run once for the env, vs the push certs which runs for each
> role that has a cert requirement.
>
> we'd end up with some like
> generate_certs:
>   runs_from: master_once
>   provider: 
> push_certs:
>   runs_from: master
>   provider: bash
>   role: [*]
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Vladimir Kuklin  > wrote:
>
>> Evgeniy,
>>
>> I am not suggesting to go to Nailgun DB directly. There obviously
>> should be some layer between a serializier and DB.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>>
>>> Vladimir,
>>>
>>> >> 1) Nailgun DB
>>>
>>> Just a small note, we should not provide access to the database,
>>> this approach
>>> has serious issues, what we can do is to provide this information
>>> for example
>>> via REST API.
>>>
>>> What you are saying is already implemented in any deployment tool
>>> for example
>>> lets take a look at Ansible [1].
>>>
>>> What you can do there is to create a task which stores the result of
>>> executed
>>> shell command in some variable.
>>> And you can reuse it in any other task. I think we should use this
>>> approach.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://docs.ansible.com/playbooks_variables.html#registered-variables
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Vladimir Kuklin <
>>> vkuk...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
 Evgeniy

 This is not about layers - it is about how we get data. And we need
 to separate data sources from the way we manipulate it. Thus, sources 
 may
 be: 1) Nailgun DB 2) Users inventory system 3) Opendata like, list of
 Google DNS Servers. Then all this data is aggregated and transformed
 somehow. After that it is shipped to the deployment layer. That's how 
 I see
 it.

 On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Evgeniy L 
 wrote:

> Vladimir,
>
> It's no clear how it's going to help. You can generate keys with
> one
> tasks and then upload them with another task, why do we need
> another layer/entity here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Vladimir Kuklin <
> vkuk...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Dmitry, Evgeniy
>>
>> This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned
>> serializers for tasks - taking data from 3rd party sources if user 
>> wants.
>> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Vladimir Kuklin]

Andrew

+1 to it - I provided these concerns to guys that we should not ship data
to tasks that do not need it. It will make us able to increase security for
pluggable architecture

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Andrew Woodward  wrote:

> Cool, You guys read my mind o.O
>
> RE: the review. We need to avoid copying the secrets to nodes that don't
> require them. I think it might be too soon to be able to make granular
> tasks based for this, but we need to move that way.
>
> Also, how are the astute tasks read into the environment? Same as with the
> others?
>
>> fuel rel --sync-deployment-tasks
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> It looks like what you've described is already done for ssh keys [1].
>>
>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/149543/
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to Andrew
>>>
>>> This is actually what we want to do with SSL keys.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Andrew Woodward 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 We need to be highly security conscious here doing this in an insecure
 manner is a HUGE risk so rsync over ssh from the master node is usually (or
 scp) OK but rsync protocol from the node in the cluster will not be BAD (it
 leaves the certs exposed on an weak service.)

 I could see this being implemented as some additional task type that
 can instead be run on the fuel master nodes instead of a target node. This
 could also be useful for plugin writers that may need to access some
 external API as part of their task graph. We'd need some way to make the
 generate task run once for the env, vs the push certs which runs for each
 role that has a cert requirement.

 we'd end up with some like
 generate_certs:
   runs_from: master_once
   provider: 
 push_certs:
   runs_from: master
   provider: bash
   role: [*]

 On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
 wrote:

> Evgeniy,
>
> I am not suggesting to go to Nailgun DB directly. There obviously
> should be some layer between a serializier and DB.
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>
>> Vladimir,
>>
>> >> 1) Nailgun DB
>>
>> Just a small note, we should not provide access to the database, this
>> approach
>> has serious issues, what we can do is to provide this information for
>> example
>> via REST API.
>>
>> What you are saying is already implemented in any deployment tool for
>> example
>> lets take a look at Ansible [1].
>>
>> What you can do there is to create a task which stores the result of
>> executed
>> shell command in some variable.
>> And you can reuse it in any other task. I think we should use this
>> approach.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://docs.ansible.com/playbooks_variables.html#registered-variables
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Vladimir Kuklin <
>> vkuk...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Evgeniy
>>>
>>> This is not about layers - it is about how we get data. And we need
>>> to separate data sources from the way we manipulate it. Thus, sources 
>>> may
>>> be: 1) Nailgun DB 2) Users inventory system 3) Opendata like, list of
>>> Google DNS Servers. Then all this data is aggregated and transformed
>>> somehow. After that it is shipped to the deployment layer. That's how I 
>>> see
>>> it.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>>>
 Vladimir,

 It's no clear how it's going to help. You can generate keys with one
 tasks and then upload them with another task, why do we need
 another layer/entity here?

 Thanks,

 On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Vladimir Kuklin <
 vkuk...@mirantis.com> wrote:

> Dmitry, Evgeniy
>
> This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned
> serializers for tasks - taking data from 3rd party sources if user 
> wants.
> In this case user will be able to generate some data somewhere and 
> fetch it
> using this code that we import.
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
> dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you guys for quick response.
>> Than, if there is no better option we will follow with second
>> approach.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Evgeniy L 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if we should user approach when task executor reads
>>> some data from the file system, ideally Nailgun should push
>>> all of the required data to Astute.
>>> But it can be tricky to implement, so I vote for 2nd approach.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> On Wed,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Andrew Woodward]

Cool, You guys read my mind o.O

RE: the review. We need to avoid copying the secrets to nodes that don't
require them. I think it might be too soon to be able to make granular
tasks based for this, but we need to move that way.

Also, how are the astute tasks read into the environment? Same as with the
others?

> fuel rel --sync-deployment-tasks


On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Evgeniy L  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> It looks like what you've described is already done for ssh keys [1].
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/149543/
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to Andrew
>>
>> This is actually what we want to do with SSL keys.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Andrew Woodward 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We need to be highly security conscious here doing this in an insecure
>>> manner is a HUGE risk so rsync over ssh from the master node is usually (or
>>> scp) OK but rsync protocol from the node in the cluster will not be BAD (it
>>> leaves the certs exposed on an weak service.)
>>>
>>> I could see this being implemented as some additional task type that can
>>> instead be run on the fuel master nodes instead of a target node. This
>>> could also be useful for plugin writers that may need to access some
>>> external API as part of their task graph. We'd need some way to make the
>>> generate task run once for the env, vs the push certs which runs for each
>>> role that has a cert requirement.
>>>
>>> we'd end up with some like
>>> generate_certs:
>>>   runs_from: master_once
>>>   provider: 
>>> push_certs:
>>>   runs_from: master
>>>   provider: bash
>>>   role: [*]
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Evgeniy,

 I am not suggesting to go to Nailgun DB directly. There obviously
 should be some layer between a serializier and DB.

 On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:

> Vladimir,
>
> >> 1) Nailgun DB
>
> Just a small note, we should not provide access to the database, this
> approach
> has serious issues, what we can do is to provide this information for
> example
> via REST API.
>
> What you are saying is already implemented in any deployment tool for
> example
> lets take a look at Ansible [1].
>
> What you can do there is to create a task which stores the result of
> executed
> shell command in some variable.
> And you can reuse it in any other task. I think we should use this
> approach.
>
> [1]
> http://docs.ansible.com/playbooks_variables.html#registered-variables
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Vladimir Kuklin  > wrote:
>
>> Evgeniy
>>
>> This is not about layers - it is about how we get data. And we need
>> to separate data sources from the way we manipulate it. Thus, sources may
>> be: 1) Nailgun DB 2) Users inventory system 3) Opendata like, list of
>> Google DNS Servers. Then all this data is aggregated and transformed
>> somehow. After that it is shipped to the deployment layer. That's how I 
>> see
>> it.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>>
>>> Vladimir,
>>>
>>> It's no clear how it's going to help. You can generate keys with one
>>> tasks and then upload them with another task, why do we need
>>> another layer/entity here?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Vladimir Kuklin <
>>> vkuk...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
 Dmitry, Evgeniy

 This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned
 serializers for tasks - taking data from 3rd party sources if user 
 wants.
 In this case user will be able to generate some data somewhere and 
 fetch it
 using this code that we import.

 On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
 dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:

> Thank you guys for quick response.
> Than, if there is no better option we will follow with second
> approach.
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Evgeniy L 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> I'm not sure if we should user approach when task executor reads
>> some data from the file system, ideally Nailgun should push
>> all of the required data to Astute.
>> But it can be tricky to implement, so I vote for 2nd approach.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Aleksandr Didenko <
>> adide...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 3rd option is about using rsyncd that we run under xinetd on
>>> primary controller. And yes, the main concern here is security.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi.
 I'm vote

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Evgeniy L]

Andrew,

It looks like what you've described is already done for ssh keys [1].

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/149543/

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
wrote:

> +1 to Andrew
>
> This is actually what we want to do with SSL keys.
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Andrew Woodward  wrote:
>
>> We need to be highly security conscious here doing this in an insecure
>> manner is a HUGE risk so rsync over ssh from the master node is usually (or
>> scp) OK but rsync protocol from the node in the cluster will not be BAD (it
>> leaves the certs exposed on an weak service.)
>>
>> I could see this being implemented as some additional task type that can
>> instead be run on the fuel master nodes instead of a target node. This
>> could also be useful for plugin writers that may need to access some
>> external API as part of their task graph. We'd need some way to make the
>> generate task run once for the env, vs the push certs which runs for each
>> role that has a cert requirement.
>>
>> we'd end up with some like
>> generate_certs:
>>   runs_from: master_once
>>   provider: 
>> push_certs:
>>   runs_from: master
>>   provider: bash
>>   role: [*]
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Evgeniy,
>>>
>>> I am not suggesting to go to Nailgun DB directly. There obviously should
>>> be some layer between a serializier and DB.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>>>
 Vladimir,

 >> 1) Nailgun DB

 Just a small note, we should not provide access to the database, this
 approach
 has serious issues, what we can do is to provide this information for
 example
 via REST API.

 What you are saying is already implemented in any deployment tool for
 example
 lets take a look at Ansible [1].

 What you can do there is to create a task which stores the result of
 executed
 shell command in some variable.
 And you can reuse it in any other task. I think we should use this
 approach.

 [1]
 http://docs.ansible.com/playbooks_variables.html#registered-variables

 On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
 wrote:

> Evgeniy
>
> This is not about layers - it is about how we get data. And we need to
> separate data sources from the way we manipulate it. Thus, sources may be:
> 1) Nailgun DB 2) Users inventory system 3) Opendata like, list of Google
> DNS Servers. Then all this data is aggregated and transformed somehow.
> After that it is shipped to the deployment layer. That's how I see it.
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>
>> Vladimir,
>>
>> It's no clear how it's going to help. You can generate keys with one
>> tasks and then upload them with another task, why do we need
>> another layer/entity here?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Vladimir Kuklin <
>> vkuk...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dmitry, Evgeniy
>>>
>>> This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned
>>> serializers for tasks - taking data from 3rd party sources if user 
>>> wants.
>>> In this case user will be able to generate some data somewhere and 
>>> fetch it
>>> using this code that we import.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
>>> dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
 Thank you guys for quick response.
 Than, if there is no better option we will follow with second
 approach.

 On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Evgeniy L 
 wrote:

> Hi Dmitry,
>
> I'm not sure if we should user approach when task executor reads
> some data from the file system, ideally Nailgun should push
> all of the required data to Astute.
> But it can be tricky to implement, so I vote for 2nd approach.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Aleksandr Didenko <
> adide...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> 3rd option is about using rsyncd that we run under xinetd on
>> primary controller. And yes, the main concern here is security.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>> I'm vote for second option, cause if we will want to implement
>>> some unified hierarchy (like Fuel as CA for keys on controllers for
>>> different env's) then it will fit better than other options. If we
>>> implement 3rd option then we will reinvent the wheel with SSL in 
>>> future.
>>> Bare rsync as storage for private keys sounds pretty uncomfortable 
>>> for me.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
>>> dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi f

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Vladimir Kuklin]

+1 to Andrew

This is actually what we want to do with SSL keys.

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Andrew Woodward  wrote:

> We need to be highly security conscious here doing this in an insecure
> manner is a HUGE risk so rsync over ssh from the master node is usually (or
> scp) OK but rsync protocol from the node in the cluster will not be BAD (it
> leaves the certs exposed on an weak service.)
>
> I could see this being implemented as some additional task type that can
> instead be run on the fuel master nodes instead of a target node. This
> could also be useful for plugin writers that may need to access some
> external API as part of their task graph. We'd need some way to make the
> generate task run once for the env, vs the push certs which runs for each
> role that has a cert requirement.
>
> we'd end up with some like
> generate_certs:
>   runs_from: master_once
>   provider: 
> push_certs:
>   runs_from: master
>   provider: bash
>   role: [*]
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
> wrote:
>
>> Evgeniy,
>>
>> I am not suggesting to go to Nailgun DB directly. There obviously should
>> be some layer between a serializier and DB.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>>
>>> Vladimir,
>>>
>>> >> 1) Nailgun DB
>>>
>>> Just a small note, we should not provide access to the database, this
>>> approach
>>> has serious issues, what we can do is to provide this information for
>>> example
>>> via REST API.
>>>
>>> What you are saying is already implemented in any deployment tool for
>>> example
>>> lets take a look at Ansible [1].
>>>
>>> What you can do there is to create a task which stores the result of
>>> executed
>>> shell command in some variable.
>>> And you can reuse it in any other task. I think we should use this
>>> approach.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://docs.ansible.com/playbooks_variables.html#registered-variables
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Evgeniy

 This is not about layers - it is about how we get data. And we need to
 separate data sources from the way we manipulate it. Thus, sources may be:
 1) Nailgun DB 2) Users inventory system 3) Opendata like, list of Google
 DNS Servers. Then all this data is aggregated and transformed somehow.
 After that it is shipped to the deployment layer. That's how I see it.

 On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:

> Vladimir,
>
> It's no clear how it's going to help. You can generate keys with one
> tasks and then upload them with another task, why do we need
> another layer/entity here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Vladimir Kuklin <
> vkuk...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Dmitry, Evgeniy
>>
>> This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned serializers
>> for tasks - taking data from 3rd party sources if user wants. In this 
>> case
>> user will be able to generate some data somewhere and fetch it using this
>> code that we import.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
>> dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you guys for quick response.
>>> Than, if there is no better option we will follow with second
>>> approach.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>>>
 Hi Dmitry,

 I'm not sure if we should user approach when task executor reads
 some data from the file system, ideally Nailgun should push
 all of the required data to Astute.
 But it can be tricky to implement, so I vote for 2nd approach.

 Thanks,

 On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Aleksandr Didenko <
 adide...@mirantis.com> wrote:

> 3rd option is about using rsyncd that we run under xinetd on
> primary controller. And yes, the main concern here is security.
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>> I'm vote for second option, cause if we will want to implement
>> some unified hierarchy (like Fuel as CA for keys on controllers for
>> different env's) then it will fit better than other options. If we
>> implement 3rd option then we will reinvent the wheel with SSL in 
>> future.
>> Bare rsync as storage for private keys sounds pretty uncomfortable 
>> for me.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
>> dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I want to discuss the way we are working with generated keys for
>>> nova/ceph/mongo and something else.
>>>
>>> Right now we are generating keys on master itself, and then
>>> distributing them by mcollective
>>> transport to all nodes. As you may know we are in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Andrew Woodward]

We need to be highly security conscious here doing this in an insecure
manner is a HUGE risk so rsync over ssh from the master node is usually (or
scp) OK but rsync protocol from the node in the cluster will not be BAD (it
leaves the certs exposed on an weak service.)

I could see this being implemented as some additional task type that can
instead be run on the fuel master nodes instead of a target node. This
could also be useful for plugin writers that may need to access some
external API as part of their task graph. We'd need some way to make the
generate task run once for the env, vs the push certs which runs for each
role that has a cert requirement.

we'd end up with some like
generate_certs:
  runs_from: master_once
  provider: 
push_certs:
  runs_from: master
  provider: bash
  role: [*]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
wrote:

> Evgeniy,
>
> I am not suggesting to go to Nailgun DB directly. There obviously should
> be some layer between a serializier and DB.
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>
>> Vladimir,
>>
>> >> 1) Nailgun DB
>>
>> Just a small note, we should not provide access to the database, this
>> approach
>> has serious issues, what we can do is to provide this information for
>> example
>> via REST API.
>>
>> What you are saying is already implemented in any deployment tool for
>> example
>> lets take a look at Ansible [1].
>>
>> What you can do there is to create a task which stores the result of
>> executed
>> shell command in some variable.
>> And you can reuse it in any other task. I think we should use this
>> approach.
>>
>> [1] http://docs.ansible.com/playbooks_variables.html#registered-variables
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Evgeniy
>>>
>>> This is not about layers - it is about how we get data. And we need to
>>> separate data sources from the way we manipulate it. Thus, sources may be:
>>> 1) Nailgun DB 2) Users inventory system 3) Opendata like, list of Google
>>> DNS Servers. Then all this data is aggregated and transformed somehow.
>>> After that it is shipped to the deployment layer. That's how I see it.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>>>
 Vladimir,

 It's no clear how it's going to help. You can generate keys with one
 tasks and then upload them with another task, why do we need
 another layer/entity here?

 Thanks,

 On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Vladimir Kuklin >>> > wrote:

> Dmitry, Evgeniy
>
> This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned serializers
> for tasks - taking data from 3rd party sources if user wants. In this case
> user will be able to generate some data somewhere and fetch it using this
> code that we import.
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
> dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you guys for quick response.
>> Than, if there is no better option we will follow with second
>> approach.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if we should user approach when task executor reads
>>> some data from the file system, ideally Nailgun should push
>>> all of the required data to Astute.
>>> But it can be tricky to implement, so I vote for 2nd approach.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Aleksandr Didenko <
>>> adide...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
 3rd option is about using rsyncd that we run under xinetd on
 primary controller. And yes, the main concern here is security.

 On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
 sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:

> Hi.
> I'm vote for second option, cause if we will want to implement
> some unified hierarchy (like Fuel as CA for keys on controllers for
> different env's) then it will fit better than other options. If we
> implement 3rd option then we will reinvent the wheel with SSL in 
> future.
> Bare rsync as storage for private keys sounds pretty uncomfortable 
> for me.
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
> dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I want to discuss the way we are working with generated keys for
>> nova/ceph/mongo and something else.
>>
>> Right now we are generating keys on master itself, and then
>> distributing them by mcollective
>> transport to all nodes. As you may know we are in the process of
>> making this process described as
>> task.
>>
>> There is a couple of options:
>> 1. Expose keys in rsync server on master, in folder
>> /etc/fuel/keys, and then copy them with rsync task (but it feels not 
>> very
>> secure)
>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Vladimir Kuklin]

Evgeniy,

I am not suggesting to go to Nailgun DB directly. There obviously should be
some layer between a serializier and DB.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:

> Vladimir,
>
> >> 1) Nailgun DB
>
> Just a small note, we should not provide access to the database, this
> approach
> has serious issues, what we can do is to provide this information for
> example
> via REST API.
>
> What you are saying is already implemented in any deployment tool for
> example
> lets take a look at Ansible [1].
>
> What you can do there is to create a task which stores the result of
> executed
> shell command in some variable.
> And you can reuse it in any other task. I think we should use this
> approach.
>
> [1] http://docs.ansible.com/playbooks_variables.html#registered-variables
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
> wrote:
>
>> Evgeniy
>>
>> This is not about layers - it is about how we get data. And we need to
>> separate data sources from the way we manipulate it. Thus, sources may be:
>> 1) Nailgun DB 2) Users inventory system 3) Opendata like, list of Google
>> DNS Servers. Then all this data is aggregated and transformed somehow.
>> After that it is shipped to the deployment layer. That's how I see it.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>>
>>> Vladimir,
>>>
>>> It's no clear how it's going to help. You can generate keys with one
>>> tasks and then upload them with another task, why do we need
>>> another layer/entity here?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Vladimir Kuklin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Dmitry, Evgeniy

 This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned serializers
 for tasks - taking data from 3rd party sources if user wants. In this case
 user will be able to generate some data somewhere and fetch it using this
 code that we import.

 On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
 dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:

> Thank you guys for quick response.
> Than, if there is no better option we will follow with second approach.
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> I'm not sure if we should user approach when task executor reads
>> some data from the file system, ideally Nailgun should push
>> all of the required data to Astute.
>> But it can be tricky to implement, so I vote for 2nd approach.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Aleksandr Didenko <
>> adide...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 3rd option is about using rsyncd that we run under xinetd on primary
>>> controller. And yes, the main concern here is security.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi.
 I'm vote for second option, cause if we will want to implement some
 unified hierarchy (like Fuel as CA for keys on controllers for 
 different
 env's) then it will fit better than other options. If we implement 3rd
 option then we will reinvent the wheel with SSL in future. Bare rsync 
 as
 storage for private keys sounds pretty uncomfortable for me.

 On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
 dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I want to discuss the way we are working with generated keys for
> nova/ceph/mongo and something else.
>
> Right now we are generating keys on master itself, and then
> distributing them by mcollective
> transport to all nodes. As you may know we are in the process of
> making this process described as
> task.
>
> There is a couple of options:
> 1. Expose keys in rsync server on master, in folder
> /etc/fuel/keys, and then copy them with rsync task (but it feels not 
> very
> secure)
> 2. Copy keys from /etc/fuel/keys on master, to /var/lib/astute on
> target nodes. It will require additional
> hook in astute, smth like copy_file, which will copy data from
> file on master and put it on the node.
>
> Also there is 3rd option to generate keys right on
> primary-controller and then distribute them on all other nodes, and i 
> guess
> it will be responsibility of controller to store current keys that are
> valid for cluster. Alex please provide more details about 3rd 
> approach.
>
> Maybe there is more options?
>
>
>
>
> __
> 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/open

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Evgeniy L]

Vladimir,

>> 1) Nailgun DB

Just a small note, we should not provide access to the database, this
approach
has serious issues, what we can do is to provide this information for
example
via REST API.

What you are saying is already implemented in any deployment tool for
example
lets take a look at Ansible [1].

What you can do there is to create a task which stores the result of
executed
shell command in some variable.
And you can reuse it in any other task. I think we should use this approach.

[1] http://docs.ansible.com/playbooks_variables.html#registered-variables

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
wrote:

> Evgeniy
>
> This is not about layers - it is about how we get data. And we need to
> separate data sources from the way we manipulate it. Thus, sources may be:
> 1) Nailgun DB 2) Users inventory system 3) Opendata like, list of Google
> DNS Servers. Then all this data is aggregated and transformed somehow.
> After that it is shipped to the deployment layer. That's how I see it.
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>
>> Vladimir,
>>
>> It's no clear how it's going to help. You can generate keys with one
>> tasks and then upload them with another task, why do we need
>> another layer/entity here?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Vladimir Kuklin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dmitry, Evgeniy
>>>
>>> This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned serializers
>>> for tasks - taking data from 3rd party sources if user wants. In this case
>>> user will be able to generate some data somewhere and fetch it using this
>>> code that we import.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak >> > wrote:
>>>
 Thank you guys for quick response.
 Than, if there is no better option we will follow with second approach.

 On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:

> Hi Dmitry,
>
> I'm not sure if we should user approach when task executor reads
> some data from the file system, ideally Nailgun should push
> all of the required data to Astute.
> But it can be tricky to implement, so I vote for 2nd approach.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Aleksandr Didenko <
> adide...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> 3rd option is about using rsyncd that we run under xinetd on primary
>> controller. And yes, the main concern here is security.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>> I'm vote for second option, cause if we will want to implement some
>>> unified hierarchy (like Fuel as CA for keys on controllers for different
>>> env's) then it will fit better than other options. If we implement 3rd
>>> option then we will reinvent the wheel with SSL in future. Bare rsync as
>>> storage for private keys sounds pretty uncomfortable for me.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
>>> dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi folks,

 I want to discuss the way we are working with generated keys for
 nova/ceph/mongo and something else.

 Right now we are generating keys on master itself, and then
 distributing them by mcollective
 transport to all nodes. As you may know we are in the process of
 making this process described as
 task.

 There is a couple of options:
 1. Expose keys in rsync server on master, in folder /etc/fuel/keys,
 and then copy them with rsync task (but it feels not very secure)
 2. Copy keys from /etc/fuel/keys on master, to /var/lib/astute on
 target nodes. It will require additional
 hook in astute, smth like copy_file, which will copy data from file
 on master and put it on the node.

 Also there is 3rd option to generate keys right on
 primary-controller and then distribute them on all other nodes, and i 
 guess
 it will be responsibility of controller to store current keys that are
 valid for cluster. Alex please provide more details about 3rd approach.

 Maybe there is more options?




 __
 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
>>
>>
>
>
> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Vladimir Kuklin]

Evgeniy

This is not about layers - it is about how we get data. And we need to
separate data sources from the way we manipulate it. Thus, sources may be:
1) Nailgun DB 2) Users inventory system 3) Opendata like, list of Google
DNS Servers. Then all this data is aggregated and transformed somehow.
After that it is shipped to the deployment layer. That's how I see it.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:

> Vladimir,
>
> It's no clear how it's going to help. You can generate keys with one
> tasks and then upload them with another task, why do we need
> another layer/entity here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Vladimir Kuklin 
> wrote:
>
>> Dmitry, Evgeniy
>>
>> This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned serializers for
>> tasks - taking data from 3rd party sources if user wants. In this case user
>> will be able to generate some data somewhere and fetch it using this code
>> that we import.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you guys for quick response.
>>> Than, if there is no better option we will follow with second approach.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>>>
 Hi Dmitry,

 I'm not sure if we should user approach when task executor reads
 some data from the file system, ideally Nailgun should push
 all of the required data to Astute.
 But it can be tricky to implement, so I vote for 2nd approach.

 Thanks,

 On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Aleksandr Didenko <
 adide...@mirantis.com> wrote:

> 3rd option is about using rsyncd that we run under xinetd on primary
> controller. And yes, the main concern here is security.
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>> I'm vote for second option, cause if we will want to implement some
>> unified hierarchy (like Fuel as CA for keys on controllers for different
>> env's) then it will fit better than other options. If we implement 3rd
>> option then we will reinvent the wheel with SSL in future. Bare rsync as
>> storage for private keys sounds pretty uncomfortable for me.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
>> dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I want to discuss the way we are working with generated keys for
>>> nova/ceph/mongo and something else.
>>>
>>> Right now we are generating keys on master itself, and then
>>> distributing them by mcollective
>>> transport to all nodes. As you may know we are in the process of
>>> making this process described as
>>> task.
>>>
>>> There is a couple of options:
>>> 1. Expose keys in rsync server on master, in folder /etc/fuel/keys,
>>> and then copy them with rsync task (but it feels not very secure)
>>> 2. Copy keys from /etc/fuel/keys on master, to /var/lib/astute on
>>> target nodes. It will require additional
>>> hook in astute, smth like copy_file, which will copy data from file
>>> on master and put it on the node.
>>>
>>> Also there is 3rd option to generate keys right on
>>> primary-controller and then distribute them on all other nodes, and i 
>>> guess
>>> it will be responsibility of controller to store current keys that are
>>> valid for cluster. Alex please provide more details about 3rd approach.
>>>
>>> Maybe there is more options?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __
>>> 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


>>>
>>>
>>> __
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Yours Faithfully,
>> Vladimir Kuklin,
>> Fuel Library Tech Lead,
>> Mirantis, Inc.
>> +7 (495) 640-49-04
>> +7 (926) 702-39-

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Evgeniy L]

Vladimir,

It's no clear how it's going to help. You can generate keys with one
tasks and then upload them with another task, why do we need
another layer/entity here?

Thanks,

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Vladimir Kuklin 
wrote:

> Dmitry, Evgeniy
>
> This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned serializers for
> tasks - taking data from 3rd party sources if user wants. In this case user
> will be able to generate some data somewhere and fetch it using this code
> that we import.
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you guys for quick response.
>> Than, if there is no better option we will follow with second approach.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if we should user approach when task executor reads
>>> some data from the file system, ideally Nailgun should push
>>> all of the required data to Astute.
>>> But it can be tricky to implement, so I vote for 2nd approach.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Aleksandr Didenko <
>>> adide...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
 3rd option is about using rsyncd that we run under xinetd on primary
 controller. And yes, the main concern here is security.

 On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
 sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:

> Hi.
> I'm vote for second option, cause if we will want to implement some
> unified hierarchy (like Fuel as CA for keys on controllers for different
> env's) then it will fit better than other options. If we implement 3rd
> option then we will reinvent the wheel with SSL in future. Bare rsync as
> storage for private keys sounds pretty uncomfortable for me.
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak <
> dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I want to discuss the way we are working with generated keys for
>> nova/ceph/mongo and something else.
>>
>> Right now we are generating keys on master itself, and then
>> distributing them by mcollective
>> transport to all nodes. As you may know we are in the process of
>> making this process described as
>> task.
>>
>> There is a couple of options:
>> 1. Expose keys in rsync server on master, in folder /etc/fuel/keys,
>> and then copy them with rsync task (but it feels not very secure)
>> 2. Copy keys from /etc/fuel/keys on master, to /var/lib/astute on
>> target nodes. It will require additional
>> hook in astute, smth like copy_file, which will copy data from file
>> on master and put it on the node.
>>
>> Also there is 3rd option to generate keys right on primary-controller
>> and then distribute them on all other nodes, and i guess it will be
>> responsibility of controller to store current keys that are valid for
>> cluster. Alex please provide more details about 3rd approach.
>>
>> Maybe there is more options?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> __
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Yours Faithfully,
> Vladimir Kuklin,
> Fuel Library Tech Lead,
> Mirantis, Inc.
> +7 (495) 640-49-04
> +7 (926) 702-39-68
> Skype kuklinvv
> 45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
> Moscow, Russia,
> www.mirantis.com 
> www.mirantis.ru
> vkuk...@mirantis.com
>
> __
> 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 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Vladimir Kuklin]

Dmitry, Evgeniy

This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned serializers for
tasks - taking data from 3rd party sources if user wants. In this case user
will be able to generate some data somewhere and fetch it using this code
that we import.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak 
wrote:

> Thank you guys for quick response.
> Than, if there is no better option we will follow with second approach.
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:
>
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> I'm not sure if we should user approach when task executor reads
>> some data from the file system, ideally Nailgun should push
>> all of the required data to Astute.
>> But it can be tricky to implement, so I vote for 2nd approach.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Aleksandr Didenko > > wrote:
>>
>>> 3rd option is about using rsyncd that we run under xinetd on primary
>>> controller. And yes, the main concern here is security.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi.
 I'm vote for second option, cause if we will want to implement some
 unified hierarchy (like Fuel as CA for keys on controllers for different
 env's) then it will fit better than other options. If we implement 3rd
 option then we will reinvent the wheel with SSL in future. Bare rsync as
 storage for private keys sounds pretty uncomfortable for me.

 On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak >>> > wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I want to discuss the way we are working with generated keys for
> nova/ceph/mongo and something else.
>
> Right now we are generating keys on master itself, and then
> distributing them by mcollective
> transport to all nodes. As you may know we are in the process of
> making this process described as
> task.
>
> There is a couple of options:
> 1. Expose keys in rsync server on master, in folder /etc/fuel/keys,
> and then copy them with rsync task (but it feels not very secure)
> 2. Copy keys from /etc/fuel/keys on master, to /var/lib/astute on
> target nodes. It will require additional
> hook in astute, smth like copy_file, which will copy data from file on
> master and put it on the node.
>
> Also there is 3rd option to generate keys right on primary-controller
> and then distribute them on all other nodes, and i guess it will be
> responsibility of controller to store current keys that are valid for
> cluster. Alex please provide more details about 3rd approach.
>
> Maybe there is more options?
>
>
>
>
> __
> 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
>>
>>
>
> __
> 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
>
>


-- 
Yours Faithfully,
Vladimir Kuklin,
Fuel Library Tech Lead,
Mirantis, Inc.
+7 (495) 640-49-04
+7 (926) 702-39-68
Skype kuklinvv
45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
Moscow, Russia,
www.mirantis.com 
www.mirantis.ru
vkuk...@mirantis.com
__
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] Distribution of keys for environments

[Dmitriy Shulyak]

Thank you guys for quick response.
Than, if there is no better option we will follow with second approach.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Evgeniy L  wrote:

> Hi Dmitry,
>
> I'm not sure if we should user approach when task executor reads
> some data from the file system, ideally Nailgun should push
> all of the required data to Astute.
> But it can be tricky to implement, so I vote for 2nd approach.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Aleksandr Didenko 
> wrote:
>
>> 3rd option is about using rsyncd that we run under xinetd on primary
>> controller. And yes, the main concern here is security.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
>> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>> I'm vote for second option, cause if we will want to implement some
>>> unified hierarchy (like Fuel as CA for keys on controllers for different
>>> env's) then it will fit better than other options. If we implement 3rd
>>> option then we will reinvent the wheel with SSL in future. Bare rsync as
>>> storage for private keys sounds pretty uncomfortable for me.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi folks,

 I want to discuss the way we are working with generated keys for
 nova/ceph/mongo and something else.

 Right now we are generating keys on master itself, and then
 distributing them by mcollective
 transport to all nodes. As you may know we are in the process of making
 this process described as
 task.

 There is a couple of options:
 1. Expose keys in rsync server on master, in folder /etc/fuel/keys, and
 then copy them with rsync task (but it feels not very secure)
 2. Copy keys from /etc/fuel/keys on master, to /var/lib/astute on
 target nodes. It will require additional
 hook in astute, smth like copy_file, which will copy data from file on
 master and put it on the node.

 Also there is 3rd option to generate keys right on primary-controller
 and then distribute them on all other nodes, and i guess it will be
 responsibility of controller to store current keys that are valid for
 cluster. Alex please provide more details about 3rd approach.

 Maybe there is more options?




 __
 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
>
>
__
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] Distribution of keys for environments

[Evgeniy L]

Hi Dmitry,

I'm not sure if we should user approach when task executor reads
some data from the file system, ideally Nailgun should push
all of the required data to Astute.
But it can be tricky to implement, so I vote for 2nd approach.

Thanks,

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Aleksandr Didenko 
wrote:

> 3rd option is about using rsyncd that we run under xinetd on primary
> controller. And yes, the main concern here is security.
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin <
> sbogat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>> I'm vote for second option, cause if we will want to implement some
>> unified hierarchy (like Fuel as CA for keys on controllers for different
>> env's) then it will fit better than other options. If we implement 3rd
>> option then we will reinvent the wheel with SSL in future. Bare rsync as
>> storage for private keys sounds pretty uncomfortable for me.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I want to discuss the way we are working with generated keys for
>>> nova/ceph/mongo and something else.
>>>
>>> Right now we are generating keys on master itself, and then distributing
>>> them by mcollective
>>> transport to all nodes. As you may know we are in the process of making
>>> this process described as
>>> task.
>>>
>>> There is a couple of options:
>>> 1. Expose keys in rsync server on master, in folder /etc/fuel/keys, and
>>> then copy them with rsync task (but it feels not very secure)
>>> 2. Copy keys from /etc/fuel/keys on master, to /var/lib/astute on target
>>> nodes. It will require additional
>>> hook in astute, smth like copy_file, which will copy data from file on
>>> master and put it on the node.
>>>
>>> Also there is 3rd option to generate keys right on primary-controller
>>> and then distribute them on all other nodes, and i guess it will be
>>> responsibility of controller to store current keys that are valid for
>>> cluster. Alex please provide more details about 3rd approach.
>>>
>>> Maybe there is more options?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __
>>> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Aleksandr Didenko]

3rd option is about using rsyncd that we run under xinetd on primary
controller. And yes, the main concern here is security.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin 
wrote:

> Hi.
> I'm vote for second option, cause if we will want to implement some
> unified hierarchy (like Fuel as CA for keys on controllers for different
> env's) then it will fit better than other options. If we implement 3rd
> option then we will reinvent the wheel with SSL in future. Bare rsync as
> storage for private keys sounds pretty uncomfortable for me.
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I want to discuss the way we are working with generated keys for
>> nova/ceph/mongo and something else.
>>
>> Right now we are generating keys on master itself, and then distributing
>> them by mcollective
>> transport to all nodes. As you may know we are in the process of making
>> this process described as
>> task.
>>
>> There is a couple of options:
>> 1. Expose keys in rsync server on master, in folder /etc/fuel/keys, and
>> then copy them with rsync task (but it feels not very secure)
>> 2. Copy keys from /etc/fuel/keys on master, to /var/lib/astute on target
>> nodes. It will require additional
>> hook in astute, smth like copy_file, which will copy data from file on
>> master and put it on the node.
>>
>> Also there is 3rd option to generate keys right on primary-controller and
>> then distribute them on all other nodes, and i guess it will be
>> responsibility of controller to store current keys that are valid for
>> cluster. Alex please provide more details about 3rd approach.
>>
>> Maybe there is more options?
>>
>>
>>
>> __
>> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Distribution of keys for environments

[Stanislaw Bogatkin]

Hi.
I'm vote for second option, cause if we will want to implement some unified
hierarchy (like Fuel as CA for keys on controllers for different env's)
then it will fit better than other options. If we implement 3rd option then
we will reinvent the wheel with SSL in future. Bare rsync as storage for
private keys sounds pretty uncomfortable for me.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak 
wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I want to discuss the way we are working with generated keys for
> nova/ceph/mongo and something else.
>
> Right now we are generating keys on master itself, and then distributing
> them by mcollective
> transport to all nodes. As you may know we are in the process of making
> this process described as
> task.
>
> There is a couple of options:
> 1. Expose keys in rsync server on master, in folder /etc/fuel/keys, and
> then copy them with rsync task (but it feels not very secure)
> 2. Copy keys from /etc/fuel/keys on master, to /var/lib/astute on target
> nodes. It will require additional
> hook in astute, smth like copy_file, which will copy data from file on
> master and put it on the node.
>
> Also there is 3rd option to generate keys right on primary-controller and
> then distribute them on all other nodes, and i guess it will be
> responsibility of controller to store current keys that are valid for
> cluster. Alex please provide more details about 3rd approach.
>
> Maybe there is more options?
>
>
>
> __
> 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