Do have any other solutions we have here and which of these solutions
do you prefer to have?
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:21 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Seena,
I think it would probably help if you could describe your use case
here,
and what role you want OPA to play in the interpretation of these
bucket
policies. In other words, what is it that your OPA policy is doing
with
these bucket policy documents that shouldn't be done within radosgw?
On 1/30/20 1:09 AM, Seena Fallah wrote:
> So Matt what should we have done with bucket policy if we enable
OPA
> integration?
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:45 AM Matt Benjamin
<mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>
> I think we should not be introducing new special case
behavior, nor
> sending policy documents to OPA, which from what we have
heard and
> read, intends to make no use of them.
>
> Matt
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:45 PM Seena Fallah
> <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> >
> > I think it’s better to OR between two of the bucket
policies and
> OPA policies. So if one of them reject certain access the
request
> will reject as AWS do on its IAM and bucket policy.
> > Are you okay with this idea?
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:13 PM Casey Bodley
> <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/28/20 2:45 PM, Matthias Muench wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> > I think making Ceph special to what the rest of the clients
> in the
> >> > world would expect would be a bit off the idea of providing
> S3 like
> >> > service.
> >> > To my understanding, setting OPA to be the source of
truth would
> >> > introduce latency (based on Casey’s comments) and will not
> allow to
> >> > set policies (based on Seena).
> >> > The first one brings us towards harder latency and
especially
> >> > depending on extern systems resource capability (assume
central
> >> > resource as the idea is and therefor not necessarily really
> “in reach”
> >> > within an acceptable latency, routing in addition,
etc.). The
> second
> >> > one says simply that this would break any existing
> compatibility with
> >> > clients and use cases. To me it looks not that good to
loose
> on both ends.
> >>
> >> Agreed. Even if one has to opt-in to this broken s3
> compatiblity, I'm
> >> skeptical that users will find this to be a compelling target
> for their
> >> applications.
> >>
> >> The existing prototype of OPA integration sends this
authorization
> >> request to OPA -in addition to- radosgw's own authorization
> logic, where
> >> we consult any of our user/bucket policies or ACLs that
apply.
> In this
> >> model, OPA is not the only source of truth. It just has the
> opportunity
> >> to deny access that we would otherwise grant, so it doesn't
> require that
> >> we break compatibility with any S3 features that conflict
with
> OPA's
> >> view of policy.
> >>
> >> Were we to change this so that OPA was the only source of
> truth, then
> >> we'd be left with two bad options: either reject all requests
> to modify
> >> policy and break existing applications, or send all
policy/ACL
> >> information to OPA and require every OPA policy script to
implement
> >> s3-compatible enforcement of them. I also don't see any
benefit
> to this
> >> model - why, if an client wants to use s3 policy to
restrict a
> certain
> >> access, would OPA want to override that and grant access
instead?
> >>
> >> > I could live more with the latency issue but wouldn’t
like it.
> >> > For the second, I can understand the idea of having
> simplification for
> >> > auditing the access but I’m not that convinced to take the
> burden of
> >> > being “the special” one that nobody wants to work with.
So, I
> would
> >> > love to see the full fledged support of setting the
policy by
> clients,
> >> > no matter what the result would be in terms of
implementing it to
> >> > interact with OPA. Instead, having an additional
requirement to
> >> > implement additional handling to set policies different
from
> what S3
> >> > actually provides would require special clients first and
> secondly an
> >> > additional path to OPA with all the additional burden
to tweak
> >> > security to allow this path to OPA. I feel that the first
> wouldn’t
> >> > happen (special clients) and the second in practice not
> either because
> >> > of security constraints by the OPA admin folks.
> >> >
> >> > G,
> >> > -matt
> >> >
> >> > ——————————————————
> >> > Matthias Muench
> >> > Senior Specialist Solution Architect
> >> > EMEA Storage Specialist
> >> > matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>> <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
> >> > Phone: +49-160-92654111 <tel:+49-160-92654111>
> >> >
> >> > Red Hat GmbH
> >> > Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 14 <x-apple-data-detectors://2/1>
> >> > 85630 Grasbrunn <x-apple-data-detectors://2/1>
> >> > Germany <x-apple-data-detectors://2/1>
> >> >
>
_______________________________________________________________________
> >> > Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com
<http://de.redhat.com/> ·
> >> > Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register:
Amtsgericht
> Muenchen
> >> > HRB 153243 · Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael
> O'Neill, Tom
> >> > Savage, Eric Shander
> >> >
> >> >> On Jan 28, 2020, at 15:02, Seena Fallah
> <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Amazon AWS S3 has two type of policies. One from bucket
> policy and
> >> >> one form IAM. I think it could be better to have two
> policies models
> >> >> in Ceph one from bucket policy and one form OPA if its
enable.
> >> >> So if you are okay we can change the PR to make bucket
> policy enabled
> >> >> when OPA is enabled, too. Because now bucket policies not
> working
> >> >> when OPA integration is enabled.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:57 AM Seena Fallah
> <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Matt When OPA integration is enabled S3 policies
doesn’t
> work! If
> >> >> you want them to be worked we should bypass S3
policies
> to OPA
> >> >> for being applied and worked.
> >> >> Here we have conflict in OPA integration with S3
policies!
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:52 AM Matt Benjamin
> >> >> <mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> My take so far is that this is not a bug, and I'd
> like not to
> >> >> introduce special-case logic to override or
suppress
> >> >> processing of
> >> >> native policy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Matt
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 5:24 PM Seena Fallah
> >> >> <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think it's very good that Ceph export its
> authorization
> >> >> and we could have external source of truth
with it. S3
> >> >> policies can transport to OPA and updates by users
> set/del
> >> >> policies.
> >> >> > But now we have conflict with OPA
integration and S3
> >> >> policies which is set when OPA integration is
> enabled, aren't
> >> >> work.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Can you all please help to fix this bug?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:05 PM Seena Fallah
> >> >> <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hi all.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Any updates here?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:50 AM Seena Fallah
> >> >> <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> OPA can be used in companies that uses many
> services like
> >> >> k8s, Ceph,... and want to have one central
point for
> >> >> authorizing users so they can maintenance their
> access for
> >> >> each user on each service for example and etc.
It’s
> just a
> >> >> use case and so it’s really good to have it. I
think
> this is
> >> >> the biggest use case for having OPA in
products that
> gets an
> >> >> option to centralize authorizing for all types of
> services.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Performance for this model is issue like
having
> keystone
> >> >> with Ceph. So I think it’s based on users that
> active this
> >> >> integrations at all.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> The model for writing policies to radosgw
isn’t
> really
> >> >> good I think because of the reason above if
this accrued
> >> >> there is always two copies of policies and it
> doesn’t sounds
> >> >> good for maintaining.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> If bucket policy disable, s3 clients like
boto3
> and etc
> >> >> will not work for setting polices but I think when
> someone is
> >> >> enabling OPA for authorizing it will also have an
> API for
> >> >> his/her OPA server to set/del policies and
they can call
> >> >> these APIs to set/del policies.
> >> >> >>> And for extensions like PublicAccessBlock,
it will
> >> >> disable because OPA is just authorizing
requests and
> Ceph
> >> >> doesn’t authorize any request when OPA integration
> is enabled
> >> >> so OPA should handle any incoming policies
were made
> by S3
> >> >> policies. So it doesn’t make conflicts and if OPA
> integration
> >> >> is enabled it won’t work as we return 405 on each
> set/del
> >> >> policies requests and if OPA is disabled users can
> use this
> >> >> policies.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:05 AM Casey Bodley
> >> >> <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> I am a big fan of the IAM policy documents,
> both because
> >> >> of the
> >> >> >>>> flexibility and expressiveness they provide,
> and because
> >> >> they're in a
> >> >> >>>> format that all of our s3 clients understand.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> I'm not familiar enough with OPA to know
what extra
> >> >> capabilities it
> >> >> >>>> offers that IAM policy cannot, but I have
serious
> >> >> concerns about the
> >> >> >>>> performance and scalability of a model where
> radosgw has
> >> >> to send
> >> >> >>>> blocking RPCs to OPA in order to
authorize each and
> >> >> every request.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> On the other hand, consider a model where a
> Policy Agent
> >> >> exercises its
> >> >> >>>> control over authorization by writing IAM
> documents to
> >> >> radosgw, which we
> >> >> >>>> use to cheaply authorize requests out of our
> metadata
> >> >> cache. I would
> >> >> >>>> imagine that this model could cover a lot of
> interesting
> >> >> use cases,
> >> >> >>>> without breaking support for existing s3
> applications
> >> >> that rely on
> >> >> >>>> bucket policy - as the proposal to reject
> >> >> PutBucketPolicy requests would.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Is this something that OPA could feasibly do?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> For use cases that aren't supported by
the existing
> >> >> policy grammar,
> >> >> >>>> we're open to maintaining extensions to these
> documents.
> >> >> We already
> >> >> >>>> implement a number of s3 extensions
[1][2] that are
> >> >> easily accessible
> >> >> >>>> via python/boto and the aws cli.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> But a model where radosgw outsources
authorization
> >> >> entirely is a hard
> >> >> >>>> sell, because it conflicts with feature
development
> >> >> going forward. One
> >> >> >>>> example would be support for
PublicAccessBlock [3],
> >> >> where radosgw needs
> >> >> >>>> full visibility into policy to detect cases
> where public
> >> >> access would be
> >> >> >>>> granted.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> [1]
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >>
>
https://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/python/#using-s3-api-extensions
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> [2]
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >>
>
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/examples/boto3/service-2.sdk-extras.json
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> [3] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/30033
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> On 1/20/20 12:21 PM, Seena Fallah wrote:
> >> >> >>>> > I’m also agree with you Matt that it will
> free us from
> >> >> complexity of
> >> >> >>>> > handling S3 policy or Swift ACL if we save
> the current
> >> >> state of OPA.
> >> >> >>>> > But if we want use this state of OPA we
> should act for
> >> >> S3 policy and
> >> >> >>>> > Swift ACL that if user is setting them it
> shouldn’t be
> >> >> allowed and
> >> >> >>>> > return user that you can’t set them!
Because
> now when
> >> >> OPA integration
> >> >> >>>> > is enabled and user set bucket policy
it returns
> >> >> success but actually
> >> >> >>>> > it doesn’t work!
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > What are your thoughts?
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 12:33 AM Seena
Fallah
> >> >> <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>>
> >> >> >>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > I think the other problem caused when OPA
> >> >> integration is enabled
> >> >> >>>> > and we set bucket policy is when user
> wants to get
> >> >> his/her bucket
> >> >> >>>> > policy. Some policies are set through OPA
> (for
> >> >> example in OPA
> >> >> >>>> > rules we have user A that has access to
> user B
> >> >> bucket so OPA
> >> >> >>>> > return true on authorizing request and it
> acts
> >> >> like bucket policy)
> >> >> >>>> > and some through bucket policy (s3 clients
> >> >> command). So when user
> >> >> >>>> > is getting his/her bucket policy what
> data should
> >> >> we return? The
> >> >> >>>> > policies that are set through bucket
> policy or OPA
> >> >> rules for that
> >> >> >>>> > bucket?
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > I fact I think OPA rules are not static
> and will
> >> >> change in time
> >> >> >>>> > and so there should be a client interface
> for that
> >> >> OPA server that
> >> >> >>>> > users could change their rules for their
> buckets
> >> >> (giving access to
> >> >> >>>> > put, get, ... to someone else and etc.).
> So if the
> >> >>
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/%C2%A0?entry=gmail&source=g>client
exists
> >> >> >>>> > there is no need to bucket policy and we
> can make
> >> >> it disable (by
> >> >> >>>> > returning 405) when OPA integration is
> enabled (I
> >> >> repeat that
> >> >> >>>> > still now in Ceph latest version when OPA
> >> >> integration is enabled
> >> >> >>>> > bucket policies aren’t work!) because the
> policies
> >> >> that are set
> >> >> >>>> > with bucket policy can be check with OPA,
> too.
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > What’s your opinion?
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:40 PM Seena
Fallah
> >> >> >>>> > <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > I think when OPA integration is
> enabled the
> >> >> source of truth
> >> >> >>>> > for authorizing should be OPA (it is
> right now
> >> >> in Ceph and all
> >> >> >>>> > requests are authorizing with OPA and Ceph
> >> >> doesn’t authorize
> >> >> >>>> > any request by it self).
> >> >> >>>> > When user is using bucket policy
feature
> >> >> he/she wants to get
> >> >> >>>> > access to someone else so when he/she
is the
> >> >> bucket owner,
> >> >> >>>> > he/she can perform this action and we
should
> >> >> apply this policy
> >> >> >>>> > for him/her. If we want policies just
> update
> >> >> within OPA
> >> >> >>>> > server/client and S3 clients (s3cmd,
aws, ...)
> >> >> don’t edit
> >> >> >>>> > policies, we should reply to them that
> >> >> set/delpolicy isn’t
> >> >> >>>> > allowed from here (return 405 for example;
> >> >> just for saying
> >> >> >>>> > that the request that user send isn’t
> successful).
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > Yes we can have some process and
> >> >> simplification before sending
> >> >> >>>> > it to OPA but the s3 policy has a
general
> >> >> structure so OPA
> >> >> >>>> > server can decode it by it self.
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:16 PM Matt
> Benjamin
> >> >> >>>> > <mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
<mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>>>>>
wrote:
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > The larger question, I think, is what OPA
> >> >> is supposed to
> >> >> >>>> > do with it.
> >> >> >>>> > The larger question I think it asks is
> >> >> whether OPA or Ceph
> >> >> >>>> > owns a
> >> >> >>>> > particular dimension of policy--or,
> >> >> perhaps, which owns
> >> >> >>>> > policy for
> >> >> >>>> > what portions of the namespace (at any
> >> >> particular point in
> >> >> >>>> > time).
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > Without any new interaction, when OPA is
> >> >> configured, OPA
> >> >> >>>> > can make a
> >> >> >>>> > direct authorization decision with all
> >> >> available
> >> >> >>>> > information for
> >> >> >>>> > Ceph/RGW, notwithstanding any S3 or Swift
> >> >> ACL or S3 policy
> >> >> >>>> > that might
> >> >> >>>> > exist--including any that might have been
> >> >> stored prior to
> >> >> >>>> > turning on
> >> >> >>>> > this proposed feature to push policy
> >> >> documents to OPA. This
> >> >> >>>> > overriding property of the OPA integration
> >> >> when in use
> >> >> >>>> > frees us from a
> >> >> >>>> > lot of complexity regarding which system
> >> >> is the source of
> >> >> >>>> > truth, and
> >> >> >>>> > for what.
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > I can see value in more sophisticated
> >> >> integration that
> >> >> >>>> > mutually
> >> >> >>>> > comprehends policy--but I'm having trouble
> >> >> with "send
> >> >> >>>> > policy documents
> >> >> >>>> > to OPA, maybe it will do something
with them."
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > Matt
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:01 PM Seena
Fallah
> >> >> >>>> > <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> > >
> >> >> >>>> > > Hello Ash
> >> >> >>>> > >
> >> >> >>>> > > With bucket policy user A can get access
> >> >> to user B for
> >> >> >>>> > putting object on bucket C. So if this
> >> >> policy sent to Ceph
> >> >> >>>> > and OPA integration is enabled it will be
> >> >> discard because
> >> >> >>>> > this policy isn’t sent to OPA server to be
> >> >> updated.
> >> >> >>>> > > Here is a documentation for bucket
policy:
> >> >> >>>> > >
> >> >> https://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/bucketpolicy/
> >> >> >>>> > >
> >> >> >>>> > > With this PR when user set bucket
> >> >> policy, the data of
> >> >> >>>> > that policy will sent to OPA server to be
> >> >> applied and so
> >> >> >>>> > OPA can get access to user that gets
> >> >> access to bucket via
> >> >> >>>> > bucket policy.
> >> >> >>>> > >
> >> >> >>>> > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 8:24 PM Ash
Narkar
> >> >> >>>> > <ash@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx>>
> <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx>>>
> >> >> <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx>>
> <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxx>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >> >>>> > >> Hello Seena,
> >> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >> >>>> > >> The OPA integration is with the RGW and
> >> >> the intent is
> >> >> >>>> > to check if an authenticated user is
> >> >> allowed to perform a
> >> >> >>>> > particular action on a particular
> >> >> resource. For example,
> >> >> >>>> > can Bob delete a bucket based on some
> >> >> attribute like his
> >> >> >>>> > location. I am not familiar with the
> >> >> internals of Ceph's
> >> >> >>>> > bucket policy command. It would be great
> >> >> to get some
> >> >> >>>> > context here and discuss if the bucket
> >> >> policy can be
> >> >> >>>> > authorized with OPA which is the intent of
> >> >> your PR I believe.
> >> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >> >>>> > >> Thanks
> >> >> >>>> > >> Ash
> >> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >> >>>> > >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 6:33 AM Seena
> >> >> Fallah
> >> >> >>>> > <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>> So when OPA integration is enabled the
> >> >> bucket policy
> >> >> >>>> > from users will not work!
> >> >> >>>> > >>> I think it’s about Ceph architecture
> >> >> not OPA because
> >> >> >>>> > OPA is for authorizing the requests and
> >> >> bucket policy is
> >> >> >>>> > one of the authorizing methods that OPA
> >> >> should support.
> >> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 5:56 PM Matt
> >> >> Benjamin
> >> >> >>>> > <mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
<mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mbenjami@xxxxxxxxxx>>>>>
wrote:
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> Hi Seena,
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> As I wrote in a comment on your PR,
> >> >> my current
> >> >> >>>> > intuition is that what
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> you're doing here isn't consistent
> >> >> with the original
> >> >> >>>> > intent of the OPA
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> integration we currently have, nor
> >> >> with the OPA model
> >> >> >>>> > in general.
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> That said, I'd really like some
> >> >> feedback from OPA
> >> >> >>>> > architects, CC'd.
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> regards,
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> Matt
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 5:04 AM Seena
> >> >> Fallah
> >> >> >>>> > <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> > Hi all. In OPA integration from
> >> >> Ceph there is no
> >> >> >>>> > integration for bucket policy.
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> > When user is setting bucket policy
> >> >> to his/her
> >> >> >>>> > bucket the OPA server won't get who get's
> >> >> access to that
> >> >> >>>> > bucket so after that if the request is
> >> >> coming from the
> >> >> >>>> > user (that gets access to that bucket via
> >> >> bucket policy)
> >> >> >>>> > to access that bucket (PUT, GET,...), OPA
> >> >> will reject that
> >> >> >>>> > because of no data in database.
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> > I have create a pull request for
> >> >> this problem so if
> >> >> >>>> > user creates a bucket policy for his/her
> >> >> bucket, the
> >> >> >>>> > policy data will send to OPA server to be
> >> >> update on the
> >> >> >>>> > database.
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> > I think the main idea of having OPA
> >> >> is to have all
> >> >> >>>> > authorization in OPA and Ceph don't
> >> >> authorize any request
> >> >> >>>> > by it self.
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> > Here is the pull request and I
> >> >> would be thankful to
> >> >> >>>> > hear about your comments.
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> >
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/32294
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> > Thanks.
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> >
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> > Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>
> <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>
<mailto:dev@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>>>
> <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx> <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>> <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>
> <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to
> >> >> dev-leave@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>
<mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>>
> <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>
<mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>>>
> >> >> >>>> > <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>
> <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx> <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> --
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> Matt Benjamin
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> Red Hat, Inc.
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> 315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> tel. 734-821-5101
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> fax. 734-769-8938
> >> >> >>>> > >>>> cel. 734-216-5309
> >> >> >>>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > --
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > Matt Benjamin
> >> >> >>>> > Red Hat, Inc.
> >> >> >>>> > 315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A
> >> >> >>>> > Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> >
http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > tel. 734-821-5101
> >> >> >>>> > fax. 734-769-8938
> >> >> >>>> > cel. 734-216-5309
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> >
_______________________________________________
> >> >> >>>> > Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>
> <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>>
<mailto:dev@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx> <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>>>
> >> >> >>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to
> dev-leave@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>
<mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx> <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>>>
> >> >> >>>>
_______________________________________________
> >> >> >>>> Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>
> <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>>
<mailto:dev@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx> <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>>>
> >> >> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
> dev-leave@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>
<mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>>
> >> >> <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx> <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >> Matt Benjamin
> >> >> Red Hat, Inc.
> >> >> 315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A
> >> >> Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage
> >> >>
> >> >> tel. 734-821-5101
> >> >> fax. 734-769-8938
> >> >> cel. 734-216-5309
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>
<mailto:dev@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxx>>
> >> >> To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
<mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>
> <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx <mailto:dev-leave@xxxxxxx>>
> >>
>
>
> --
>
> Matt Benjamin
> Red Hat, Inc.
> 315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A
> Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
>
> http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage
>
> tel. 734-821-5101
> fax. 734-769-8938
> cel. 734-216-5309
>
