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> 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(a)gmail.com>
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(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> Any updates here?
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:50 AM Seena Fallah <seenafallah(a)gmail.com>
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(a)redhat.com>
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-extra…
>>>
>>> [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(a)gmail.com
>>> >
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>> 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 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(a)gmail.com <mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>>
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(a)redhat.com <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>
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(a)gmail.com
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>>
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(a)styra.com <mailto:ash@styra.com>> 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(a)gmail.com
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>>
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(a)redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>
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(a)gmail.com
<mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com>>
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(a)ceph.io
<mailto:
dev(a)ceph.io>
>>> > >>>>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
dev-leave(a)ceph.io
>>> >
<mailto:dev-leave@ceph.io>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> --
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> 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(a)ceph.io
>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io
--
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