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@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@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@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@redhat.com>>
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>>
>>>> > > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> >>>>
>>>> > > > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>
>>>> > > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>>
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@redhat.com>>
>>>> > > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>>
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>
>>>> > > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> >>>>
>>>> > > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>
>>>> > > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>>
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>
>>>> > > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> > > > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>
>>>> > > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>>
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>
>>>> > > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> >>>>
>>>> > > > >
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>
>>>> > > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>>
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
<mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>>
>>>> > > > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com>
>>>> >
>>>
>>>