As mentioned in our FS doc in wiki, "In phase I, all the permissions attached to any policy are by default explicit 'Allow' permissions. As of now 'Deny' permissions cannot be added."
For your use cases, you can have two options: 1. Assign the two accounts into 2 different groups, and attach different policy for the group. 2. Directly attach an Allow policy to account 2 instead of assigning both accounts into the Allow All group. Thanks -min On 6/3/14 5:03 AM, "Meghna Kale" <meghna.k...@sungardas.com> wrote: >Hi Min, > >With reference to the wiki doc, I had a query. >In case of a customized role with deny permissions how will the listAll, >isrecursive ..etc. input parameters values will be ? > >For example, there are two accounts and they belong to a group with Allow >all permissions. If I have to remove some permissions for only account 1 >but keep them for account 2 is it possible? > >Thanks >Meghna. > > >On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> Added API issues we found through IAM feature in the wiki page created >>by >> Demetrius: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/API+changes >> >> Thanks >> -min >> >> On 5/14/14 9:34 AM, "Min Chen" <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> >Thanks Daan. Yes, I saw that there is another thread about putting an >>API >> >request for 5.0 api. Once we are done with this disabling, we will put >>the >> >issues we have found with current API in that wiki page to take into >> >consideration when we design the new API. >> > >> >-min >> > >> >On 5/14/14 12:12 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >>Min, >> >> >> >>I think everybody knows I am all for less features per release. I >> >>don't think you are making a bad call, per se. I do think we should >> >>consider if we can come up with a total picture of what 5.x would >> >>require af the api, though. Can you add to the discussion what it is >> >>that is keeping you from implementing. And what requirements you have >> >>for the 5.0 api so we can start devising the architectural guidelines >> >>for the new api. more and more calls for a 5.0 are coming up lately so >> >>let's move forward. (changing title) >> >> >> >>On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >> >>> >> >>> In the past several weeks, QA has done some testing on IAM feature >>and >> >>>found >> >>> several backward-compatibility issues. Even though Prachi and I have >> >>>tried >> >>> our best to fix bugs to maintain backward compatibility, we realized >> >>>that in >> >>> order to support true IAM model documented in our FS >> >>> >> >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+Identi >> >>>t >> >>>y+and+Access+Management+%28IAM%29+Plugin, >> >>> we will have to make several API changes that will require us to >> >>>increment >> >>> CloudStack major version. >> >>> Therefore we think that IAM feature is not ready for ACS 4.4 >>release, >> >>>and we >> >>> would like to propose to disable it in 4.4 branch and re-enable it >> >>>later >> >>> when community decides to go for 5.x. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks >> >>> -min >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>Daan >> > >> >> >>
