On 6/15/23 20:54, Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 2:29 PM Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > >
> > > I thought about this too and came to the same conclusion, that
UID/GID
> > > based
> > > restriction can be applied dynamically, so detecting it on mount-time
> > > helps not so much.
> > >
> > For this you please raise one PR to ceph first to support this, and in
> > the PR we can discuss more for the MDS auth caps. And after the PR
> > getting merged then in this patch series you need to check the
> > corresponding option or flag to determine whether could the idmap
> > mounting succeed.
>
> I'm sorry but I don't understand what we want to support here. Do we
want to
> add some new ceph request that allows to check if UID/GID-based
> permissions are applied for
> a particular ceph client user?
IMO we should prevent users to set UID/GID-based MDS auth caps from ceph
side. And users should know what has happened.
ok, we want to restrict setting of UID/GID-based permissions if there is an
idmapped mount on the client. IMHO, idmapping mounts is truly a
client-side feature
and server modification looks a bit strange to me.
Yeah, agree.
But without fixing the lookup issue in kclient side it will be buggy and
may make some tests fail too.
We need to support this more smoothly.
Thanks
- Xiubo
Once users want to support the idmap mounts they should know that the
MDS auth caps won't work anymore.
They will work, but permission rule configuration should include
non-mapped UID/GID-s.
As I mentioned here [1] it's already the case even without mount idmappings.
It would be great to discuss this thing as a concept and synchronize
our understanding of this
before going into modification of a server side.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAEivzxcBBJV6DOGzy5S7=TUjrXZfVaGaJX5z7WFzYq1w4MdtiA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Kind regards,
Alex
Thanks
- Xiubo
