Vish
On Feb 1, 2012, at 7:56 PM, Adam Young wrote:
As part of the effort to get LDAP support into Keystone Light, we
had a bit of a design discussion on IRC. The discussion focused on
Roles, and I would like to sum up what was said in that discussion.
When we talk about Roles, we mean the permissions a given user has
in a given tenant. As such, it is a three way relationship, and
LDAP does not handle those well. Group member ship is done using a
multivalued attribute, such that a Group has a list of users in an
attribute named "members." This cannot be extended to roles
directly, as the attribute would have to hold two values: the
user, and the role. One proposal was to do just that: to append
the role name on to the user name, and them as a single string
inside a single attribute. A drawback to this approach is that the
LDAP rules have no way of enforcing that the values placed into the
concatenated string are valid values. Another drawback is that the
parsing of the string is then placed on the system that consumes the
roles.
Groups can be containers of other objects. As such, another
alternative is to put a collection of roles under the tenant group,
and then to add the user names to each of the roles. The drawback
to this approach is that the tenant then becomes a subtree, and the
management of subtrees is more involved in LDAP than the management
of single objects. /
/Roles tend to map to permissions on external objects. For example,
a role might indicate that a given user can create a new network
inside of quantum, or deploy a new template image into glance. If
the set of roles is known a-priori, they could be done as a set of
attributes on the tenant group. The drawback with this approach is
that making changes to the LDAP schema after deployment is generally
not allowed in large organizations, so adding a new role would be
impossible/.
If the objects being managed were entirely within the Directory
Server, one possible solution would be to use the Directory servers
access controls to manage who could do what. For example, in order
for a user to be able to create a new network, they wound need write
access to the networks collection for their tenancy. The reason we
cannot do that is that many of the objects are maintained in external
databases, and not in the directory server. Plus, the access
controls for LDAP are not guaranteed to be consistent across
different LDAP management systems.
/
One point that came up repeatedly is that different organizations are
going to have very different LDAP structures, and the Keystone
architecture would ideally be flexible enough to map to what any
given organization has implemented, albeit with some customization.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
Post to : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
