Could AssumeRoleWithOPA become a thing?
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 12:17 Seena Fallah <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a simple way I should say that OPA can't get access to something that radosgw isn't allowing. For example if I want to get access to user A for my bucket in OPA policies it will reject because radosgw doesn't have this policy and will reject.OPA can just reject requests and it's BUG.Can you please fix this bug with this PR? :)_______________________________________________On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:43 AM Seena Fallah <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I have make this PR to make OPA single source of truth so OPA can get access to not owned bucket for user. And also in OPA request we send bucket policy, acl, ... to OPA so we can support them when OPA integration is enabled. We will authorized user based on bucket policy, acl, ... and OPA policies in OPA server.Can you please take a look at here?On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:52 AM Seena Fallah <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I have seen another bad scenario that we have two source of truth. If we get access to user for a bucket that he/she doesn't own it in OPA we can perform this action because op->verify_permission() will return -EACCES and so in rgw_process_authenticated function rgw_opa_authorize will not check!I think it's better to have one source of truth when we enabled OPA integration so we can send bucket policy, acl, ... to OPA on each request to be authorized.Do you have any other suggestion?On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:01 AM Seena Fallah <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I have changed the PR for sending bucket policy, bucket acl, iam policy and user acl as a field to OPA request so OPA can decision based on this parameters and we can have a external authorization for our organization like AWS IAM. So we can have an S3 service that authorize based on bucket policy and organizations IAM.Could you please review this?On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 2:39 PM Seena Fallah <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Also we can add bucket policy result field to OPA request so in OPA policies we can act based on bucket policy results.Are you agree with it?On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:17 PM Seena Fallah <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:In bucket policy we have an Effect::Pass in validation result so if we just put OPA authorization in case of Effect::Pass I think it will be close to what AWS do.On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:37 PM Seena Fallah <seenafallah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:In organizations that has many services and want to have a centralized authorization server this will be a good solution to have.I mean that when we just authorize user ReadOnly in OPA but give write access via bucket policy, the user can’t write because OPA is rejecting.I think we can just weight bucket policy upper that OPA so bucket policies that apply policies specific than OPA policies can accept and reject at first then OPA would authorize that request. I mean bucket policy specify policy more specific (On bucket or on object) than OPA (OPA can set policy globally too like giving ReadOnly to all buckets) so it's better to first check bucket policy then check for OPA. this could be easy solve this problem.On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:11 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/6/20 11:58 AM, Seena Fallah wrote:
> The main goal of using OPA like as AWS IAM is having an external
> authorization so we can have out own management on policies from
> external source of truth (OPA) too.
>
> I think it’s better to handle bucket policy with OPA as well as AWS
> does so we can have a better S3 service :)
Can you expand on why that's better than the model I suggested earlier
in the thread, where a centralized policy service uses radosgw's
existing IAM APIs to manage policy instead of requiring radosgw to call
out to an external service for every request?
I'd also like to clarify what you mean when you say "handle bucket
policy with OPA" - my understanding is that it's not something that OPA
itself does, but something very specific to your own product's OPA
policy script. Am I getting that right? If so, it sounds like you're
trying to re-engineer our OPA integration in a way that a) is not useful
to OPA users in general, and b) duplicates functionality that radosgw
already provides.
For OPA users that just want the ability to write simple scripts to
customize authorization for their environment, I think our current level
of OPA integration is sufficient.
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:16 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Is there an advantage to doing this in OPA over radosgw? Have you
> looked
> at using our PutUserPolicy[1] APIs instead? We support both user and
> bucket policy, and (as far as I know) handle the intersection of
> the two
> as you'd expect.
>
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/APIReference/API_PutUserPolicy.html
>
> On 2/5/20 9:55 AM, Seena Fallah wrote:
> > I'm trying to implement AWS IAM with OPA so I can have external
> > authorization for my S3 service and also have an active bucket
> ACL and
> > bucket policy.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:11 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> >
> > I'm confused by your references to AWS IAM. Are you talking
> about
> > radosgw user policy? Or are you trying to implement IAM policy
> > inside of
> > OPA?
> >
> > On 2/5/20 8:54 AM, Seena Fallah wrote:
> > > Hi all.
> > >
> > > Any updates here? :)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 10:37 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:
> > >
> > > I should also mention that if we get access to bucket
> via bucket
> > > policy and reject it via AWS IAM, the request will
> reject so I
> > > think we should make a new behavior at what we should do
> > with this
> > > two source of truth?
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 10:33 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>>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes but the main problem is when the policy isn't
> set in AWS
> > > IAM for example a user has only AmazonS3ReadOnlyAccess
> > and we
> > > give PutObject policy via bucket policy, user can
> put object
> > > to that bucket but in radosgw, OPA will deny this
> process
> > > because there is only ReadOnlyAccess to that
> bucket for user
> > > and radosgw will not check bucket policy that gave
> access to
> > > user.
> > > I think we should weight bucket policy over OPA so
> if bucket
> > > policy accept that request it doesn't need to be
> checked
> > with
> > > OPA BUT if there is no policy according to that
> request it
> > > should check by OPA because if the policy
> according to that
> > > request isn't set bucket policy will reject that
> request
> > so it
> > > against failed!
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:30 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:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/30/20 2:18 PM, Seena Fallah wrote:
> > > > Hi Casey,
> > > >
> > > > The main problem now is when OPA integration is
> > enabled
> > > bucket
> > > > policies aren’t work!
> > > > I have checked AWS S3 that what is doing
> when both
> > > bucket policy and
> > > > IAM policy (the policy is set with AWS panel
> in IAM
> > > section) is set it
> > > > will OR between two of them so now in
> radosgw S3 we
> > > don’t have this
> > > > feature and bucket policies won’t work when OPA
> > > integration is enabled.
> > > >
> > > > So I think it’s better to active this
> feature and
> > > enabled bucket
> > > > policy when OpA integration is enabled.
> > > >
> > > > There is two solutions here in this
> discussion for
> > > enabling bucket
> > > > policy on OPA integration:
> > > > 1. Send bucket policy on set/del actions to
> OPA server
> > > to be apply on
> > > > OPA policy rules so in this case the source
> of truth
> > > will be OPA (the
> > > > state that we have now in OPA integration)
> and so
> > these
> > > policies that
> > > > sent from bucket policy will be applied.
> > > > 2. OR between bucket policy and OPA policy like
> > AWS S3.
> > > So there is
> > > > two source of truth in this case and if any of
> > them deny
> > > the request,
> > > > the request will be denied.
> > >
> > > What you described here in 2. is exactly how it
> > currently
> > > works.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
> > > > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto: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>>
> <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 <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:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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>>
> > > <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 <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 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>>
> > > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> > > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>>>
> > > > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> > > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
> <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> > > <mailto: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:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
> > > > <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> > > <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>>>>
> > > > > <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> > > <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
> > > > <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthias.muench@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> > > <mailto: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>>
> <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
> > > > <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>>>>
> > > > > <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> > > <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
> <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:mmuench@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mmuench@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>>
> > > <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 <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:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 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>>>
> > > <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 <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>
> > <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
> <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:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 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>>>
> <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 <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>
> > <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
> <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>
>
Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
