If we send bucket policy, acl, ... to OPA, in OPA server we can parse them
and make decision based on our policies. So we don't break bucket policy,
acl, ... support in OPA integration and OPA can gain access to requests
based on its policies and bucket policy, acl, ....
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 2:24 PM Seena Fallah <seenafallah(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In a code base (
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/32294/files#diff-bb1cc6889525611b45d6af6d…) in
rgw_process_authenticated
function we have an IF that check for OPA authorization result after that
if it was OK (200) it will call verify_permission() that check with radosgw
policies like bucket policy, bucket acl, user acl, ....
Now if I create a policy in OPA that user A can access user B's bucket so
OPA return OK (200) to radosgw and radosgw will call verify_permission()
but in radosgw policies we don't have a policy that user A has access to
user B so the request will be reject.
So OPA can just reject requests and if OPA accept a request radosgw should
also has that policy for being accept to execute.
I think it's better to make OPA single source of truth and send bucket
policy, acl, ... to OPA in OPA request to be authorized.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 2:09 PM Abhishek Lekshmanan <abhishek(a)suse.com>
wrote:
> Seena Fallah <seenafallah(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
> > 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?
> >
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/32294
>
> How does OPA decide on S3 conditionals wrt Policy here,
> we already support a few bucket attribute or Object based conditionals
>
>
https://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/bucketpolicy/#bucket-related-oper…
>
> which can only be evaluated after reading the object in question for eg.
> These allow for eg. Bucket A would have access to User B to download
> object iff the object tag has an attribute openaccess = true.
> Additionally for buckets that are public
>
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/30033 would prevent access when
> IgnorePublicAcls are true.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:52 AM Seena Fallah <seenafallah(a)gmail.com>
> 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(a)gmail.com>
> >> 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.
> >>>
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/32294
> >>> Could you please review this?
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 2:39 PM Seena Fallah
<seenafallah(a)gmail.com>
> >>> 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(a)gmail.com
> >
> >>>> 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(a)gmail.com>
> >>>>> 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(a)redhat.com>
> >>>>>> 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(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>> 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(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>>>
> >>>>>>> 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(a)gmail.com
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>
> >>>>>>> > > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
<mailto:
> seenafallah(a)gmail.com
> >>>>>>> >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>>>>
> >>>>>>> > > 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(a)gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> 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(a)redhat.com
<mailto:
> cbodley(a)redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > >
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > 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(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>>>>> 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(a)gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>>
<mailto:
> seenafallah(a)gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>>>>>> 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(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > >
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
<mailto:cbodley@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> > 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(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >
<mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > > <mailto:
> matthias.muench(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >
<mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > > >
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> matthias.muench(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >
<mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > > <mailto:
> matthias.muench(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >
<mailto:matthias.muench@redhat.com>>>>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>>
> >>>>>>> > > > >
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > > >
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
<mailto:mmuench@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > > >
>> > 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(a)gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>>
<mailto:
> seenafallah(a)gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>>>>>> 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(a)gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>>
<mailto:
> seenafallah(a)gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>>
<mailto:
> seenafallah(a)gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > > >
>> >>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > > >
<mailto:
> seenafallah(a)gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
<mailto:
> >>>>>>> seenafallah(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>>>>>>> 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(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> > > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:
> mbenjami(a)redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> >>>>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io
> > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io
>
>