So this will replace the commands.properties. If one adds a new api, will they need to update the DB?
Darren On Sep 29, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> One random question, I'm interested in knowing what the relationship >> between commands.props and this new rbac thing will be. > > We have categorized two types of permission, one is API level permission > to work with current ApiChecker (what kind of APIs are allowed to be > accessed by a particular role), the other is entity level permission (what > access type we want to grant to a group on a particular entity instance). > Previous commands.properties will be stored in acl_api_permission table to > indicate what APIs can be accessed by a particular role. Out-of-box, we > have Admin, DomainAdmin, and User roles to match with current Account_type. > > Thanks > -min > > >> >> Darren >> >>> On Sep 29, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Darren Shepherd >>> <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I look forward to the proposal. Based on your short comments and the >>> artifacts I've seen so, I'll warn you that I'll probably disagree >>> strongly with the implement >>> >>> Darren >>> >>>> On Sep 29, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> RBAC branch was created by Prachi and me to do some quick prototype on >>>> rbac feature we are going to propose in the community soon. Since it is >>>> not ready yet, we haven't proposed and published FS on the ML. >>>> >>>> In this prototype, we have group, accout, role, permission as our >>>> first class object. Unlike Amazon, cloudstack ACL is mainly done at >>>> Account level, so our Group will be a collection of accounts instead of >>>> users. Different from Darren suggested here, we didn't extract a >>>> separate Policy object to >>>> Group several permissions to a policy, because we didn't see a big >>>> benefit to store collections of permissions as a Json policy object >>>> compared to storing each individual permission into a permission table. >>>> Another reason why we store individual permission in db table is to >>>> facilitate implementing row-level permission filter for list Apis, >>>> where we have created DB views to determine entities to be returned. >>>> With a separate permission table, we can potentially join that table in >>>> db view for row filtering in read operation. In terms of integrating >>>> with third-party RBAC system, I don't see a big difference between >>>> re-creating policy object using cloudstack defined Json format and >>>> asking them to define those permissions through cloudstack provided >>>> permission grant Apis. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -min >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Sep 28, 2013, at 8:51 PM, "Darren Shepherd" >>>>> <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I've noticed there's a rbac branch and things are being committed >>>>> there. I didn't see any documentation about the design or anything >>>>> (maybe it exists and I looked in the wrong place), so I'm just going >>>>> to give you my two cents on authorization systems. Hopefully this >>>>> falls in line with what is being implemented, if not, at least we'll >>>>> avoid the awkward conversation when its finish when I say the code is >>>>> marginally useful and should be rewritten. >>>>> >>>>> When talking about authorization there's a bunch of terms like >>>>> principal, permission, subject, action, policy, etc. I want to focus >>>>> on policy. Policy is central to an authorization system. The policy >>>>> is the collection of permissions that grant or deny access to some >>>>> resource or action for a given subject. RBAC is a really just a means >>>>> to generate a policy. Once you know the user, group, roles, and the >>>>> permissions of those entities that aggregation of information forms >>>>> the policy. You then take that policy and use it determine if the >>>>> given resource/action is granted/denied to a particular subject. >>>>> >>>>> It is really important that policy is a first class object in an >>>>> authorization system. This is important to understand because usually >>>>> in a big fat enterprise-y company, they really want you to enforce the >>>>> policy, but not necessarily maintain it. For example, you'll go to >>>>> your fortune 500 company and they'll tell you they need RBAC. So you >>>>> go and create an RBAC system. The problem is that the fortune 500 >>>>> company probably already has a RBAC system, and its probably AD based. >>>>> So when they said they need RBAC, the really meant you need to >>>>> enforce RBAC. If you implemented RBAC -> Policy -> Authorization, >>>>> your good, if you implemented RBAC - > Authorization, your kinda >>>>> screwed. Now you need to create a system to sync the two RBACs. And >>>>> keeping data in two places and trying to sync them is never a good >>>>> idea. Now if you implemented your system as having a policy as a >>>>> first class object, you can just swap your RBAC for theirs and all is >>>>> still swell. >>>>> >>>>> So if I was to implement this, this is how I'd do it. (And if this >>>>> sounds a lot like IAM, its because it is. If Amazon got anything >>>>> right, it's IAM). The authenticator should be able to implement >>>>> another interface that allows it to supply a Policy object during >>>>> authentication. This is logical in that the authentication systems >>>>> quite often hold authorization information too. If the authenticator >>>>> doesn't implement the interface we fall back to generating the policy >>>>> ourself. The policy is then consulted to see if the API command and >>>>> the resulting entities are granted/denied. So far none of this has >>>>> anything to do with RBAC. So the RBAC is implemented in that default >>>>> fallback implemenation that generates the policy. You map the current >>>>> user/account to groups and roles and get the policies of those >>>>> entities to construct the policy. >>>>> >>>>> Now for storing the policies I wouldn't do it in a traditional >>>>> normalized form. All you need is tables for user/group/role and the >>>>> mappings for each. The for user, group, and role you can specify a >>>>> policy JSON blob and that gets stored in the database as a mediumtext >>>>> field on the user/group/role row. From an API perspective (just like >>>>> IAM), you just let people upload the JSON blobs for each. >>>>> >>>>> So if we do it this way, we can have our own simple RBAC but then be >>>>> able to plug into far more complex and powerful authorization systems. >>>>> Hopefully that all made sense. >>>>> >>>>> Darren >
