settingsLogin | Registersettings

[openstack-dev] [oslo][nova] Anyone interested in writing a policy generator sphinx extension?

0 votes

Nova has policy defaults in code now and we can generate the sample
using oslopolicy-sample-generator but we'd like to get the default
policy sample in the Nova developer documentation also, like we have for
nova.conf.sample.

I see we use the sphinxconfiggen extension for building the
nova.conf.sample in our docs, but I don't see anything like that for
generating docs for a sample policy file.

Has anyone already started working on that, or is interested in working
on that? I've never written a sphinx extension before but I'm guessing
it could be borrowed a bit from how sphinxconfiggen was written in
oslo.config.

--

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
asked Sep 21, 2016 in openstack-dev by Matt_Riedemann (48,320 points)   3 10 25
retagged Jan 26, 2017 by admin

15 Responses

0 votes

What if policy will be manageable using RESTful API?
I'd like to validate the idea to handle policies in keystone or
affiliated service: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/325326/

On 21.09.2016 17:49, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Nova has policy defaults in code now and we can generate the sample
using oslopolicy-sample-generator but we'd like to get the default
policy sample in the Nova developer documentation also, like we have
for nova.conf.sample.

I see we use the sphinxconfiggen extension for building the
nova.conf.sample in our docs, but I don't see anything like that for
generating docs for a sample policy file.

Has anyone already started working on that, or is interested in
working on that? I've never written a sphinx extension before but I'm
guessing it could be borrowed a bit from how sphinxconfiggen was
written in oslo.config.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Sep 21, 2016 by Alexander_V_Makarov (900 points)   1 2
0 votes

On 9/21/2016 10:05 AM, Alexander Makarov wrote:
What if policy will be manageable using RESTful API?
I'd like to validate the idea to handle policies in keystone or
affiliated service: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/325326/

On 21.09.2016 17:49, Matt Riedemann wrote:

Nova has policy defaults in code now and we can generate the sample
using oslopolicy-sample-generator but we'd like to get the default
policy sample in the Nova developer documentation also, like we have
for nova.conf.sample.

I see we use the sphinxconfiggen extension for building the
nova.conf.sample in our docs, but I don't see anything like that for
generating docs for a sample policy file.

Has anyone already started working on that, or is interested in
working on that? I've never written a sphinx extension before but I'm
guessing it could be borrowed a bit from how sphinxconfiggen was
written in oslo.config.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

I'm not sure how that's related to what I'm asking for here. We have
policy defaults in code, and we want to generate those defaults into a
sample policy file and have that in the docs. Sure the policy can be
changed and customized later, but this isn't about that (or how that is
done), it's just about documenting the default policy since the
policy.json that ships in the nova tree now is empty. So we want to
document the defaults, same as nova.conf.sample.

--

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Sep 21, 2016 by Matt_Riedemann (48,320 points)   3 10 25
0 votes

Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2016-09-21 09:49:29 -0500:

Nova has policy defaults in code now and we can generate the sample
using oslopolicy-sample-generator but we'd like to get the default
policy sample in the Nova developer documentation also, like we have for
nova.conf.sample.

I see we use the sphinxconfiggen extension for building the
nova.conf.sample in our docs, but I don't see anything like that for
generating docs for a sample policy file.

Has anyone already started working on that, or is interested in working
on that? I've never written a sphinx extension before but I'm guessing
it could be borrowed a bit from how sphinxconfiggen was written in
oslo.config.

I don't have time to do it myself, but I can help get someone else
started and work with them on code reviews in oslo.policy.

Doug


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Sep 21, 2016 by Doug_Hellmann (87,520 points)   3 4 13
0 votes

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Alexander Makarov wrote:
What if policy will be manageable using RESTful API?
I'd like to validate the idea to handle policies in keystone or
affiliated service: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/325326/

As Matt said, that's unrelated to what he's asking about.

However, I have asked twice now on the review what the benefit of doing
this is and haven't received a response so I'll ask here. The proposal
would add additional latency to nearly every API operation in a service
and in return what do they get? Now that it's possible to register sane
policy defaults within a project most operators do not even need to
think about policy for projects that do that. And any policy changes
that are necessary are easily handled by a config management system.

I would expect to see a pretty significant benefit in exchange for
moving policy control out of Nova, and so far it's not clear to me what
that would be.

On 21.09.2016 17:49, Matt Riedemann wrote:

Nova has policy defaults in code now and we can generate the sample
using oslopolicy-sample-generator but we'd like to get the default
policy sample in the Nova developer documentation also, like we have
for nova.conf.sample.

I see we use the sphinxconfiggen extension for building the
nova.conf.sample in our docs, but I don't see anything like that for
generating docs for a sample policy file.

Has anyone already started working on that, or is interested in
working on that? I've never written a sphinx extension before but I'm
guessing it could be borrowed a bit from how sphinxconfiggen was
written in oslo.config.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Sep 21, 2016 by andrew_at_lascii.com (6,820 points)   1 2 5
0 votes

Andrew Laski wrote:
However, I have asked twice now on the review what the benefit of doing
this is and haven't received a response so I'll ask here. The proposal
would add additional latency to nearly every API operation in a service
and in return what do they get? Now that it's possible to register sane
policy defaults within a project most operators do not even need to
think about policy for projects that do that. And any policy changes
that are necessary are easily handled by a config management system.

I would expect to see a pretty significant benefit in exchange for
moving policy control out of Nova, and so far it's not clear to me what
that would be.

One way to do this is to setup something like etc.d or zookeeper and
have policy files be placed into certain 'keys' in there by keystone,
then consuming projects would 'watch' those keys for being changed (and
get notified when they are changed); the project would then reload its
policy when the other service (keystone) write a new key/policy.

https://coreos.com/etcd/docs/latest/api.html#waiting-for-a-change

or
https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.4.5/zookeeperProgrammers.html#ch_zkWatches

or (pretty sure consul has something similar),

This is pretty standard stuff folks :-/ and it's how afaik things like
https://github.com/skynetservices/skydns work (and more), and it would
avoid that 'additional latency' (unless the other service is adjusting
the policy key every millisecond, which seems sorta unreasonable).

-Josh


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Sep 21, 2016 by harlowja_at_fastmail (16,200 points)   2 6 8
0 votes

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Andrew Laski wrote:

However, I have asked twice now on the review what the benefit of doing
this is and haven't received a response so I'll ask here. The proposal
would add additional latency to nearly every API operation in a service
and in return what do they get? Now that it's possible to register sane
policy defaults within a project most operators do not even need to
think about policy for projects that do that. And any policy changes
that are necessary are easily handled by a config management system.

I would expect to see a pretty significant benefit in exchange for
moving policy control out of Nova, and so far it's not clear to me what
that would be.

One way to do this is to setup something like etc.d or zookeeper and
have policy files be placed into certain 'keys' in there by keystone,
then consuming projects would 'watch' those keys for being changed (and
get notified when they are changed); the project would then reload its
policy when the other service (keystone) write a new key/policy.

https://coreos.com/etcd/docs/latest/api.html#waiting-for-a-change

or
https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.4.5/zookeeperProgrammers.html#ch_zkWatches

or (pretty sure consul has something similar),

This is pretty standard stuff folks :-/ and it's how afaik things like
https://github.com/skynetservices/skydns work (and more), and it would
avoid that 'additional latency' (unless the other service is adjusting
the policy key every millisecond, which seems sorta unreasonable).

Sure. Or have Keystone be a frontend for ansible/puppet/chef/.... What's
not clear to me in any of this is what's the benefit to having Keystone
as a fronted to policy configuration/changes, or be involved in any real
way with authorization decisions? What issue is being solved by getting
Keystone involved?

-Josh


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Sep 21, 2016 by andrew_at_lascii.com (6,820 points)   1 2 5
0 votes

Andrew Laski wrote:

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:

Andrew Laski wrote:

However, I have asked twice now on the review what the benefit of doing
this is and haven't received a response so I'll ask here. The proposal
would add additional latency to nearly every API operation in a service
and in return what do they get? Now that it's possible to register sane
policy defaults within a project most operators do not even need to
think about policy for projects that do that. And any policy changes
that are necessary are easily handled by a config management system.

I would expect to see a pretty significant benefit in exchange for
moving policy control out of Nova, and so far it's not clear to me what
that would be.
One way to do this is to setup something like etc.d or zookeeper and
have policy files be placed into certain 'keys' in there by keystone,
then consuming projects would 'watch' those keys for being changed (and
get notified when they are changed); the project would then reload its
policy when the other service (keystone) write a new key/policy.

https://coreos.com/etcd/docs/latest/api.html#waiting-for-a-change

or
https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.4.5/zookeeperProgrammers.html#ch_zkWatches

or (pretty sure consul has something similar),

This is pretty standard stuff folks :-/ and it's how afaik things like
https://github.com/skynetservices/skydns work (and more), and it would
avoid that 'additional latency' (unless the other service is adjusting
the policy key every millisecond, which seems sorta unreasonable).

Sure. Or have Keystone be a frontend for ansible/puppet/chef/.... What's
not clear to me in any of this is what's the benefit to having Keystone
as a fronted to policy configuration/changes, or be involved in any real
way with authorization decisions? What issue is being solved by getting
Keystone involved?

I don't understand the puppet/chef connection, can u clarify.

If I'm interpreting it right, I would assume it's the same reason that
something like 'skydns' exists over etcd; to provide a useful API that
focuses on the dns particulars that etcd will of course not have any
idea about. So I guess the keystone API could(?)/would(?) then focus on
policy particulars as its value-add.

Maybe now I understand what u mean by puppet/chef, in that you are
asking why isn't skydns (for example) just letting/invoking
puppet/chef/ansible to distribute/send-out dns (dnsmasq) files? Is that
your equivalent question?

-Josh


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Sep 21, 2016 by harlowja_at_fastmail (16,200 points)   2 6 8
0 votes

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 03:18 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Andrew Laski wrote:

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:

Andrew Laski wrote:

However, I have asked twice now on the review what the benefit of doing
this is and haven't received a response so I'll ask here. The proposal
would add additional latency to nearly every API operation in a service
and in return what do they get? Now that it's possible to register sane
policy defaults within a project most operators do not even need to
think about policy for projects that do that. And any policy changes
that are necessary are easily handled by a config management system.

I would expect to see a pretty significant benefit in exchange for
moving policy control out of Nova, and so far it's not clear to me what
that would be.
One way to do this is to setup something like etc.d or zookeeper and
have policy files be placed into certain 'keys' in there by keystone,
then consuming projects would 'watch' those keys for being changed (and
get notified when they are changed); the project would then reload its
policy when the other service (keystone) write a new key/policy.

https://coreos.com/etcd/docs/latest/api.html#waiting-for-a-change

or
https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.4.5/zookeeperProgrammers.html#ch_zkWatches

or (pretty sure consul has something similar),

This is pretty standard stuff folks :-/ and it's how afaik things like
https://github.com/skynetservices/skydns work (and more), and it would
avoid that 'additional latency' (unless the other service is adjusting
the policy key every millisecond, which seems sorta unreasonable).

Sure. Or have Keystone be a frontend for ansible/puppet/chef/.... What's
not clear to me in any of this is what's the benefit to having Keystone
as a fronted to policy configuration/changes, or be involved in any real
way with authorization decisions? What issue is being solved by getting
Keystone involved?

I don't understand the puppet/chef connection, can u clarify.

If I'm interpreting it right, I would assume it's the same reason that
something like 'skydns' exists over etcd; to provide a useful API that
focuses on the dns particulars that etcd will of course not have any
idea about. So I guess the keystone API could(?)/would(?) then focus on
policy particulars as its value-add.

Maybe now I understand what u mean by puppet/chef, in that you are
asking why isn't skydns (for example) just letting/invoking
puppet/chef/ansible to distribute/send-out dns (dnsmasq) files? Is that
your equivalent question?

I'm focused on Nova/Keystone/OpenStack here, I'm sure skydns has good
reasons for their technical choices and I'm in no place to question
them.

I'm trying to understand the value-add that Keystone could provide here.
Policy configuration is fairly static so I'm not understanding the
desire to put an API on top of it. But perhaps I'm missing the use case
here which is why I've been asking.

My ansible/puppet/chef comparison was just that those are ways to
distribute static files and would work just as well as something built
on top of etcd/zookeeper. I'm not really concerned about how it's
implemented though. I'm just trying to understand if the desire is to
have Keystone handle this so that deployers don't need to work with
their configuration management system to configure policy files, or is
there something more here?

-Josh


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Sep 21, 2016 by andrew_at_lascii.com (6,820 points)   1 2 5
0 votes

Andrew Laski wrote:

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 03:18 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:

Andrew Laski wrote:

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:

Andrew Laski wrote:

However, I have asked twice now on the review what the benefit of doing
this is and haven't received a response so I'll ask here. The proposal
would add additional latency to nearly every API operation in a service
and in return what do they get? Now that it's possible to register sane
policy defaults within a project most operators do not even need to
think about policy for projects that do that. And any policy changes
that are necessary are easily handled by a config management system.

I would expect to see a pretty significant benefit in exchange for
moving policy control out of Nova, and so far it's not clear to me what
that would be.
One way to do this is to setup something like etc.d or zookeeper and
have policy files be placed into certain 'keys' in there by keystone,
then consuming projects would 'watch' those keys for being changed (and
get notified when they are changed); the project would then reload its
policy when the other service (keystone) write a new key/policy.

https://coreos.com/etcd/docs/latest/api.html#waiting-for-a-change

or
https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.4.5/zookeeperProgrammers.html#ch_zkWatches

or (pretty sure consul has something similar),

This is pretty standard stuff folks :-/ and it's how afaik things like
https://github.com/skynetservices/skydns work (and more), and it would
avoid that 'additional latency' (unless the other service is adjusting
the policy key every millisecond, which seems sorta unreasonable).
Sure. Or have Keystone be a frontend for ansible/puppet/chef/.... What's
not clear to me in any of this is what's the benefit to having Keystone
as a fronted to policy configuration/changes, or be involved in any real
way with authorization decisions? What issue is being solved by getting
Keystone involved?

I don't understand the puppet/chef connection, can u clarify.

If I'm interpreting it right, I would assume it's the same reason that
something like 'skydns' exists over etcd; to provide a useful API that
focuses on the dns particulars that etcd will of course not have any
idea about. So I guess the keystone API could(?)/would(?) then focus on
policy particulars as its value-add.

Maybe now I understand what u mean by puppet/chef, in that you are
asking why isn't skydns (for example) just letting/invoking
puppet/chef/ansible to distribute/send-out dns (dnsmasq) files? Is that
your equivalent question?

I'm focused on Nova/Keystone/OpenStack here, I'm sure skydns has good
reasons for their technical choices and I'm in no place to question
them.

I'm trying to understand the value-add that Keystone could provide here.
Policy configuration is fairly static so I'm not understanding the
desire to put an API on top of it. But perhaps I'm missing the use case
here which is why I've been asking.

My ansible/puppet/chef comparison was just that those are ways to
distribute static files and would work just as well as something built
on top of etcd/zookeeper. I'm not really concerned about how it's
implemented though. I'm just trying to understand if the desire is to
have Keystone handle this so that deployers don't need to work with
their configuration management system to configure policy files, or is
there something more here?

Gotcha, thanks for explaining.

I'll let others comment, but my semi-useful/semi-baked thoughts around
this are as a user I would want to:

1 Can I query keystone (or perhaps I should ask nova) to show me what

(all the) APIs in nova I'm allowed to call (without actually having to
perform those same calls to figure it out); ie, tell me how my known
role/user/tenant in maps to the policy stored (somewhere in
some project) so I can make smart decisions around which APIs I can be
calling.

2 Can I go to one place (the same place that has my roles and tenants

and such?) and ensure that by changing roles or such that dependent
systems that may have meanings for those roles are not adversely
affected (or say makes a policy being used become invalid, ie similar to
a error saying 'the change you have requested violates the rules defined
in 'nova policy' and therefore is invalid and can't be applied').

The #1 kind of use-case of course would be really easy if keystone has
the knowledge of each projects 'policy.json' (or equivalent data
structure); and since keystone already has the role/user/tenant
information it would be straightforward to solve #2 there as well
(because keystone could reject a role change or tenancy change or user
change or ... if it negatively/violates affects some projects policy).

Of course if u distribute the policy information then each project would
have to implement #1 and there would need to be some 2 way mechanism to
ensure #2 happens correctly (because if keystone just blindly does
role/user/tenant changes it may violate a projects policy definition).

Just my current thoughts, I'm sure there are other thoughts around
distributing vs centralizing and so-on (just hoping that we can think
past the view that centralizing doesn't really have to imply that
keystone has to be called for every single REST API called as a
precursor, if we use systems like etcd/zookeeper/... smartly).

-Josh


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Sep 21, 2016 by harlowja_at_fastmail (16,200 points)   2 6 8
0 votes

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 04:18 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Andrew Laski wrote:

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 03:18 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:

Andrew Laski wrote:

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:

Andrew Laski wrote:

However, I have asked twice now on the review what the benefit of doing
this is and haven't received a response so I'll ask here. The proposal
would add additional latency to nearly every API operation in a service
and in return what do they get? Now that it's possible to register sane
policy defaults within a project most operators do not even need to
think about policy for projects that do that. And any policy changes
that are necessary are easily handled by a config management system.

I would expect to see a pretty significant benefit in exchange for
moving policy control out of Nova, and so far it's not clear to me what
that would be.
One way to do this is to setup something like etc.d or zookeeper and
have policy files be placed into certain 'keys' in there by keystone,
then consuming projects would 'watch' those keys for being changed (and
get notified when they are changed); the project would then reload its
policy when the other service (keystone) write a new key/policy.

https://coreos.com/etcd/docs/latest/api.html#waiting-for-a-change

or
https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.4.5/zookeeperProgrammers.html#ch_zkWatches

or (pretty sure consul has something similar),

This is pretty standard stuff folks :-/ and it's how afaik things like
https://github.com/skynetservices/skydns work (and more), and it would
avoid that 'additional latency' (unless the other service is adjusting
the policy key every millisecond, which seems sorta unreasonable).
Sure. Or have Keystone be a frontend for ansible/puppet/chef/.... What's
not clear to me in any of this is what's the benefit to having Keystone
as a fronted to policy configuration/changes, or be involved in any real
way with authorization decisions? What issue is being solved by getting
Keystone involved?

I don't understand the puppet/chef connection, can u clarify.

If I'm interpreting it right, I would assume it's the same reason that
something like 'skydns' exists over etcd; to provide a useful API that
focuses on the dns particulars that etcd will of course not have any
idea about. So I guess the keystone API could(?)/would(?) then focus on
policy particulars as its value-add.

Maybe now I understand what u mean by puppet/chef, in that you are
asking why isn't skydns (for example) just letting/invoking
puppet/chef/ansible to distribute/send-out dns (dnsmasq) files? Is that
your equivalent question?

I'm focused on Nova/Keystone/OpenStack here, I'm sure skydns has good
reasons for their technical choices and I'm in no place to question
them.

I'm trying to understand the value-add that Keystone could provide here.
Policy configuration is fairly static so I'm not understanding the
desire to put an API on top of it. But perhaps I'm missing the use case
here which is why I've been asking.

My ansible/puppet/chef comparison was just that those are ways to
distribute static files and would work just as well as something built
on top of etcd/zookeeper. I'm not really concerned about how it's
implemented though. I'm just trying to understand if the desire is to
have Keystone handle this so that deployers don't need to work with
their configuration management system to configure policy files, or is
there something more here?

Gotcha, thanks for explaining.

I'll let others comment, but my semi-useful/semi-baked thoughts around
this are as a user I would want to:

1 Can I query keystone (or perhaps I should ask nova) to show me what

(all the) APIs in nova I'm allowed to call (without actually having to
perform those same calls to figure it out); ie, tell me how my known
role/user/tenant in maps to the policy stored (somewhere in
some project) so I can make smart decisions around which APIs I can be
calling.

So we are actually looking at implementing this in Nova, and Cinder is
looking at something similar. However a key difference is that what you
as a user are allowed to do is dependent on more than just policy. So
"capabilities" (what we're calling it in Nova) will return what you're
allowed to do based on policy, hypervisor versions, flavor used, etc...

A challenge with doing this in Keystone is that there's no way for
Keystone to map the policies to the API calls in Nova. Frankly we don't
have a way to do that in Nova either :) But we do have a tool for
exposing the list of policies that you will pass
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/322944/ .

2 Can I go to one place (the same place that has my roles and tenants

and such?) and ensure that by changing roles or such that dependent
systems that may have meanings for those roles are not adversely
affected (or say makes a policy being used become invalid, ie similar to
a error saying 'the change you have requested violates the rules defined
in 'nova policy' and therefore is invalid and can't be applied').

The #1 kind of use-case of course would be really easy if keystone has
the knowledge of each projects 'policy.json' (or equivalent data
structure); and since keystone already has the role/user/tenant
information it would be straightforward to solve #2 there as well
(because keystone could reject a role change or tenancy change or user
change or ... if it negatively/violates affects some projects policy).

Of course if u distribute the policy information then each project would
have to implement #1 and there would need to be some 2 way mechanism to
ensure #2 happens correctly (because if keystone just blindly does
role/user/tenant changes it may violate a projects policy definition).

Just my current thoughts, I'm sure there are other thoughts around
distributing vs centralizing and so-on (just hoping that we can think
past the view that centralizing doesn't really have to imply that
keystone has to be called for every single REST API called as a
precursor, if we use systems like etcd/zookeeper/... smartly).

Thanks for those thoughts. This is the type of information I would like
to see in the spec that started this subthread.

-Josh


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Sep 21, 2016 by andrew_at_lascii.com (6,820 points)   1 2 5
...