openstack team mailing list archive

[andi abes <andi.abes@xxxxxxxxx>]

I guess sfdc disagrees with you - they allow e.g Dell to use a single sign
on to authenticate to their services - as a @dell user, you can login with
the same email/password to internal resources as well as sfdc ones. ( in
case it's not obvious - you also update your password in one location - the
Dell AD directory)

On Jul 15, 2011, at 14:14, Yuriy Taraday <yorik.sar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Currently there is a basic skeleton for only one backend (identity
store) configuration per Keystone instance. It can be either DB or LDAP (the
latter is almost done).
May be in future we should be somehow able to specify not only tenants but
also an backend for each authentication request.
But I cannot imagine a real use case for that. All identities should be
stored in one place. I doubt that it'll be useful to keep different users
and/or tenants (or roles or whatever) in different stores. There usually is
one single central repository, DB, LDAP or may be some billing system. If we
have two isolated systems, we should consider using two separate auth
services.

Kind regards, Yuriy.


On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 21:40, andi abes <andi.abes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Yuriy,
>
> a  use-case scenario for keystone would be a service provider servicing
>  large customers with  their own  authentication infrastructure (e.g. LDAP/
> AD etc). Obviously, different tenants  have different instances. To
> authenticate a user, the correct authentication back end must be selected.
>
> In your model, how would a service provide be able to allow delegated
> authentication to different customers?
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Yuriy Taraday <yorik.sar@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> I think, there should not be such thing as default tenant.
>> If user does not specify tenant in authentication data, ones token should
>> not be bound to any tenant, and user should have access to resources based
>> on global role assignments.
>> If user specify tenant, one should be either explicitly bound to tenant
>> (probably through UserRoleAssignment model, but it is not the best way) or
>> in some global role. Then one will have access to resources based on global
>> role assignments and tenant role assignments.
>> I'm not sure whether users should be added to a tenant and then to roles
>> in this tenant or we should remove totally direct link between user and
>> tenant, so that user is in tenant if and only if one is in any role in this
>> tenant.
>>
>> Kind regards, Yuriy.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 00:07, Nguyen, Liem Manh <liem_m_nguyen@xxxxxx>wrote:
>>
>>>  When one creates a user, should a user always have a tenant associated
>>> with her?  If that’s the case, then the “default” tenant is the tenant that
>>> the user is associated with at creation time?  Sorry for responding to the
>>> question with another question, but it is unclear for me from looking at the
>>> model (there is no non-null constraint on the tenant_id fk on the user
>>> table).****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Thanks,****
>>>
>>> Liem****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* openstack-bounces+liem_m_nguyen=hp.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[mailto:
>>> openstack-bounces+liem_m_nguyen=hp.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf
>>> Of *Ziad Sawalha
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 14, 2011 12:22 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services); Yuriy Taraday;
>>> openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects****
>>>
>>>  ** **
>>>
>>> In the example I gave below they are not members of any group and have no
>>> roles assigned to them. Should they still be authenticated?****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From: *"Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services)" <jason.rouault@xxxxxx>
>>> *Date: *Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:25:22 +0000
>>> *To: *Ziad Sawalha <ziad.sawalha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Yuriy Taraday <
>>> yorik.sar@xxxxxxxxx>, "openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <
>>> openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> *Subject: *RE: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> A user can specify a tenantID at the time of authentication.  If no
>>> tenantID is specified during authentication, then I would expect the
>>> ‘default’ tenant for the user would apply.  The capabilities of User1 on
>>> TenantA (in this case the default tenant for the user) would be determined
>>> by their role and group assignments within the context of TenantA.  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Jason****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> *From:* Ziad Sawalha [mailto:ziad.sawalha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<ziad.sawalha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><ziad.sawalha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:35 PM
>>> *To:* Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services); Yuriy Taraday;
>>> openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> What if:****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> -          User1 has TenantA as her default tenant****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Should the service authenticate the user against TenantA? And if so, why?
>>> What does the 'default tenant' grant User1 on TenantA? It's some nebulous,
>>>  implied role…****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> *From: *"Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services)" <jason.rouault@xxxxxx>
>>> *Date: *Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:18:44 +0000
>>> *To: *Ziad Sawalha <ziad.sawalha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Yuriy Taraday <
>>> yorik.sar@xxxxxxxxx>, "openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <
>>> openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> *Subject: *RE: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> If a user is bound to their default tenant, why wouldn’t any role
>>> assignments for that user in their default tenant apply?****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> User1 authenticates specifying TenantB, this binds User1 into the context
>>> of TenantB.  In subsequent web service requests using the token received
>>> after authentication, the Auth component filter would decorate the headers
>>> with RoleY.****
>>>
>>> If User1 authenticates specifying TenantA, or specifying no Tenant,  this
>>> binds User1 into the context of TenantA.  The headers would then be
>>> decorated with RoleX.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Jason****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> *From:* openstack-bounces+jason.rouault=hp.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [
>>> mailto:openstack-bounces+jason.rouault=hp.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<openstack-bounces+jason.rouault=hp.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><openstack-bounces+jason.rouault=hp.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
>>> *On Behalf Of *Ziad Sawalha
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:09 PM
>>> *To:* Yuriy Taraday; openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Our goal is to support Nova use cases right now. You can provide access
>>> to multiple tenants using a role assignment (assigning a user a role on a
>>> specific tenant effectively binds them to that tenant).****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> However, this raises the issue of what the 'implied' role of a user is
>>> when they are bound to their *default* tenant. So we're considering how
>>> to alter the model to clean that up. No great solution yet. Any suggestions
>>> are welcome….****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Ziad****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> *From: *Yuriy Taraday <yorik.sar@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> *Date: *Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:59:08 +0400
>>> *To: *<openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> *Subject: *[Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Currently Keystone model assumes that user is bound to exactly one
>>> tenant. It conflicts with the fact that in Nova user can have access to
>>> several projects. ****
>>>
>>> Which way will it be?
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Kind regards, Yuriy.****
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Mailing list:
>>> https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.netUnsubscribe :
>>> https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help :
>>> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp This email may include confidential
>>> information. If you received it in error, please delete it.****
>>>
>>> This email may include confidential information. If you received it in
>>> error, please delete it.****
>>>
>>> This email may include confidential information. If you received it in
>>> error, please delete it.****
>>>
>>
>> -- PASS THROUGH --
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>