Following up on this thought, I think there's a big distinction between
policy scripts like OPA's and policy documents like IAM's. The OPA
scripts are dynamic, and radosgw does actually have to call into OPA for
each request to run them. On the other hand, IAM policy documents are
static and it's possible for radosgw to store and apply those itself.
On 2/6/20 1:41 PM, Casey Bodley 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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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>
> > <mailto:mbenjami@redhat.com
> <mailto:mbenjami@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
> <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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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 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
> <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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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:
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Hi all.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Any
updates here?
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> On Tue,
Jan 21, 2020 at
> 2:50
> > > 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>>>
> > > > <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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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
> <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>>
> >