Another thing worth discussion is the relation between bucket namespaces and multi-tenancy. I understand MT as a mean to provide grouping and separation between user IDs while BNS does the same but in the domain of bucket names. In that sense both things are perfectly orthogonal.
PR #5872 contains more than plain BNS. It also splits account owner from identity used to authorize a given operation. Since now an authentication subsystem (eg. Keystone or the internal, RADOS-based one) need to set three basic things in req_state: account owner (req_state::user), authentication identify used by the verify_permission() methods (req_state::auth_user) and level of permission (req_state::perm_mask). It also may create new account (RGWUserInfo) if necessary. Choice of identifiers in req_state::user and rgw_user::auth_user is delegated to specific authentication subsystem. One could set both to the same value while other might decide to differentiate them and reflect state of some external source-of-truth (Keystone). However, core of rgw doesn't need to care nor even be aware about multi-tenancy. >From my understanding wip-5073 implements the tenant concept at the core layer. Best regards, Radoslaw Zarzynski On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Pete Zaitcev <zait...@redhat.com> wrote: > I took a decent look at the pull request 5872 > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5872 > It implements something called "bucket namespaces": a way to make > buckets qualified with a prefix that permits different users use > buckets with the same name. > > I think I like the idea overall, but the implementation raises > some questions. The most important in my mind is: why use rgw_user? > > In the wip-5073, rgw_user is needed because tenant there adds > a namespace both to users and buckets. But here, users are not > in a namespace, only buckets are. Or at least that's what I see > in the code, please set me straight if I'm wrong. > > Conceptually, the user name is just a label, and this patch keeps > those labels compatible. I think, the information about a user > should contain the user's bucket namespace, but the user's label > does not need to have it. So, RGWUserInfo should have the bucket > namespace name (and possibly has_own_bns), and rgw_user is superfluous. > > If we could get rid of rgw_user, I would be onboard with this. > > Less importantly, I do not like the generosity with knobs. > The rgw_swift_create_account_with_bns shold go away with rgw_user. > The rgw_swift_account_in_url should be possible to incorporate > in a compatible fashion (it does not add an extra next_tok()). > The rgw_keystone_accepted_admin_roles... okay, that one might > be needed. Swift has an equivalent of it. > > Finally, there are some miniscule technical issues. > - Is it just me, or do encoding and decoding of RGWUserInfo do > not match? Decoding appears to make provision for wip-5073, > which we may not even need. > - The --own-bucket-namespace should not be a boolean, but the > namespace's name. > - There's some junk imported from wip-5073; I'll work on cleaning > that up. > > -- Pete -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
