On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 02:22:07PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote:
> Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 07/30/2016 01:38:27 PM:
>
> > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>
> > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS
> > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
> > Date: 07/30/2016 01:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] Read only versions of the *ctl binaries
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 05:35:31PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote:
> > > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 07/29/2016 05:27:29 PM:
> > >
> > > > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>
> > > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS
> > > > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
> > > > Date: 07/29/2016 05:27 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] Read only versions of the *ctl binaries
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 04:11:00PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We just received a new operational requirement that we have
> > > > > to restrict access to all binaries that provide RW access to
> > > > > infrastructure components, but yet still have the ability to
> > > > > read current state from the infrastructure.
> > > > >
> > > > > For OVN/OVS, this means we won't be able to use the following
> > > > > binaries in our production environment to read current state:
> > > > > ovs-vsctl, ovs-dpctl, ovs-ofctl, ovs-appctl, ovn-nbctl, and
> > > > > ovn-sbctl.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm thinking of meeting this by creating new binaries
> > > > > ovs-vsread, ovs-dpread, ovs-ofread, ovs-appread, ovn-nbread,
> > > > > and ovn-sbread that would include the show, list, and search
> > > > > commands from their RW brethren, but omit the various add
> > > > > and del commands.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before I start crafting code, I wanted to see if folks can
> > > > > think of a simpler way of meeting this new requirement...
> > > >
> > > > You could hard-code the 'dry_run' variable to true.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, that will certainly be quicker, and I can couple that with
> > > some Makefile magic to allow the same source code to produce
> > > both the *ctl and *read binaries (which lowers future
> > > maintenance costs too)...
> > >
> > > The $64K question for the community is this idea acceptable?
> > > The tl;dr; is that I'd rather not carry this type of change
> > > around as a local patch, but I will if I have to...
> >
> > I'm not yet convinced that this is useful. Is it a valuable feature or
> > a bureaucratic requirement?
>
> I'm going to say some of both (and hope that Kyle chimes in here
> with better reasons if I forget something).
>
> The bottom line is the interaction of two requirements for our
> deployments (you can call these bureaucratic, but we've learned
> the hard way that they are *absolute* when operating large
> clouds, so we feel that they are valuable):
>
> 1) That all cloud deployments be "repeatable."
>
> 2) That all necessary telemetry information be collectable for
> problem triage.
>
> The upshot of the first is that an operator at a keyboard can't be
> able to apply a "one-off" state change on a single machine, because
> now the deployment of that machine (and therefore the cloud) is
> "non-repeatable". This practical aspect of this is that we aren't
> going to give anyone access to any of the *ctl commands in their
> current form.
>
> On the other hand, the second means we have to give access to
> the read only portions of all of the *ctl commands because, afaik,
> they are the only things that can read the various state information
> needed for triaging problems.
>
> Now, rather than split the read write and read only portions of the
> *ctl commands apart (because other parts of the community likely
> operate their clouds differently), my thought was just to spin new
> versions that contain just the read only pieces under a new name
> and give our operation folks access to them. But this also explains
> my comment about carrying a local patch - we will *have* to do
> something about this and I'd like the communities eyes on it because
> (a) as I dig through the code, I'm finding places that I'm going to
> question in terms of whether a command is RW or RO and (b) more
> reviewing eyes are always better.
>
> Hopefully the above explains the situation more clearly (and again,
> Kyle, please jump in with more supporting details or other points
> I may have forgotten).
Can you just install the read/write versions off-$PATH somewhere and
then install
#! /bin/sh
exec /real/path/to/ovs-vsctl --dry-run "$@"
etc.?
I'm trying to understand the requirements here properly before going any
further.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
