I'm proposing following permissions: https://i.imgur.com/uiFBtuW.png. The meaning of every permission is explained at https://wiki.jenkins.io/ display/JENKINS/Matrix-based+security.
Any objections? On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Marco de Abreu < marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I'm currently working on a prototype of SSO based on GitHub and a few > issues arose: > > We are not able to use the permission strategy which determines the access > rights based on the read/write permission to a project as the > Jenkins-plugin is not able to resolve the link between Jenkins-jobs and > GitHub-repositories. Instead I would propose to use a role-based approach > using https://wiki.jenkins.io/display/JENKINS/Role+Strategy+Plugin. In > this case we would have three roles: Anonymous, Administrator and > Committer. While everybody would authenticate using their regular GitHub > account, the role assignment would have to happen manually. Considering > that the amount of administrators and committers doesn't change that > frequently, this shouldn't be too much of an issue - auto populating the > status is not possible unfortunately. > > Reason for splitting Administrators and Committers into two separate roles > has a security reason. At the moment, we're using Chris Oliviers GitHub > credentials to populate the commit status. If all committers would gain > full admin rights, they would have access to these credentials. Chris is > not fine with this approach and would like to limit the amount of people > with access to his credentials as much as possible. > > In order to address his concerns, I propose to add Chris to the committer > as well as to the admin role, while all other committers will only receive > the committer role without read access to the credentials. In a later > email, I will make a proposal for the detailed committer role rights. You > can check all available options at https://wiki.jenkins.io/ > display/JENKINS/Matrix-based+security. > > All people who have access to the underlying AWS account would be granted > the Administrator role with full access. At the moment, this would be > Meghna Baijal, Gautam Kumar and myself. > > An alternative solution would be to create a bot account specifically for > MXNet CI and use its credentials instead of Chris'. This account requires > write permission to the repository, but would give us the advantage that > these credentials would be shared within the committers and thus making the > restrictions regarding credentials obsolete (and Chris would be happy not > the see his face within every single PR :P ). I've asked around and > received the feedback from multiple people that Apache Infra does not want > to grant bot accounts write permission to a repository, but I would like to > confirm back considering that AppVeyor, for example, has a bot account with > write permission. I would like to check back with a mentor and create an > Apache Infra ticket to request details and permission. > > I would propose to take both approaches at the same time, meaning we can > start with Chris in the committer AND admin role while trying to get > permission for a bot account in the meantime. > > wdyt? > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I am fine without a vote unless a vote is required? Any objections, >> anyone? You're sort of adding functionality here, not changing or >> restricting... We can always change to Apache later. >> >> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Marco de Abreu < >> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> > I'd be in favour of GitHub. Shall we open a vote or would you like me to >> > create a POC with GitHub first and afterwards we can check if that's >> > enough? >> > >> > -Marco >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Apparently Apache supports OATH, so I am open to either. >> > > Good idea for the docker thing. >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Marco de Abreu < >> > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > GitHub SSO allows the neat feature that login and permission can be >> > > > selected depending on the access rights a user has to a project. >> > Somebody >> > > > with write access (committers) would be get different permissions >> than >> > > > somebody with only read access. >> > > > >> > > > We could check back with Apache for SSO, but this would involve >> Apache >> > > > infra. We could put it up to a vote whether to use GitHub or Apache >> > SSO. >> > > > >> > > > In order to reproduce a build failure we have been thinking about >> > > changing >> > > > the ci_build.sh in such a way that it can be run manually without >> > > Jenkins. >> > > > The setup I took over binds the Jenkins work directory into the >> docker >> > > > containers and uses a few hacks which are hard to reproduce >> locally. We >> > > > plan to reengineer this script to make it easier to run manually. >> > > > But making the AMI public is a good idea! We plan to make the whole >> > > > infrastructure code (based on Terraform) completely public - at the >> > > moment >> > > > it's in a private repository as it contains credentials, but they >> will >> > be >> > > > moved to KMS soon. It would definitely be a good approach to just >> > supply >> > > > the AMI so everybody could recreate the environment in their own >> > account. >> > > > >> > > > -Marco >> > > > >> > > > Am 05.01.2018 7:51 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" < >> > cjolivie...@gmail.com >> > > >: >> > > > >> > > > Well, login to the Jenkins server, I would imagine. >> > > > >> > > > github or Apache SSO (does Apache support OAUTH?) seems like a good >> > idea >> > > as >> > > > long as there's a way to not let everyone with a github account log >> in. >> > > > >> > > > Access to actual slave machines could be more restricted, I imagine. >> > > > >> > > > Eventually, a public current AMI for a build slave would be good in >> > order >> > > > to reproduce build or test problems that can't be reproduced >> locally. >> > > > >> > > > wdyt? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Marco de Abreu < >> > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Would it be an acceptable solution if we add SSO or do you also >> want >> > > > access >> > > > > to the actual AWS account and all machines? >> > > > > >> > > > > Yes, the build jobs are automatically getting created for new >> > branches. >> > > > > >> > > > > -Marco >> > > > > >> > > > > Am 05.01.2018 7:35 nachm. schrieb "Marco de Abreu" < >> > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com>: >> > > > > >> > > > > I totally agree, this is not the way it should work in an Apache >> > > Project. >> > > > > It's running on an isengard account, meaning it is only accessible >> > for >> > > > > Amazon employees. The problem is that a compromised account could >> > cause >> > > > > damage up to 170,000$ per day. There are alarms in place to notice >> > > those >> > > > > cases, but we still have to be very careful. These high limits >> have >> > > been >> > > > > chosen due to auto scaling being added within the next week's. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'd be happy to introduce a committer into the CI process and all >> the >> > > > > necessary steps as well as granting them permission. The only >> > > restriction >> > > > > being that it has to be and Amazon employee and access to console, >> > > master >> > > > > and slave only being possible from the Corp network. >> > > > > >> > > > > There is no open ticket. What would you like to request? >> > > > > >> > > > > -Marco >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Am 05.01.2018 7:22 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" < >> > > cjolivie...@gmail.com >> > > > >: >> > > > > >> > > > > Like John and other mentors were saying, it's not proper for CI to >> > be a >> > > > > closed/inaccessible environment. Is it running on an Isengard >> > account >> > > or >> > > > > in PROD or CORP or just generic EC2? I think that we should >> remedy >> > > this. >> > > > > It's very strange that no committers have access at all. Is >> there a >> > > > ticket >> > > > > open to IPSEC? >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Marco de Abreu < >> > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hello Chris, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > At the moment this is not possible due Amazon AppSec >> (Application >> > > > > security) >> > > > > > restrictions which does not permit user data and credentials on >> > these >> > > > > > machines. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I have been thinking about adding single sign on bound to >> GitHub, >> > but >> > > > we >> > > > > > would have to check back with AppSec. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Is the reason for your request still the ability to start and >> stop >> > > > > running >> > > > > > builds? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > Marco >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Am 05.01.2018 7:11 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" < >> > > > cjolivie...@gmail.com >> > > > > >: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Marco, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Are all committers able to get login access to the Jenkins >> Server? >> > > If >> > > > > not, >> > > > > > why? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -Chris >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
