I second the inclusion of an explicit way of requesting one behavior or the
other. As long as I have a way to explicitly specify both behaviors working
around the change in anything that wraps the pts command should be simple
enough.

I think I prefer the new behavior you are suggesting as the default.

Thank you,
Ed

On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 10:08 Dave Botsch <bot...@cnf.cornell.edu> wrote:

> I suspect our user deprovisioning scripts would break by trying to
> explicitly remove users from those groups. Though would be easy enough
> to fix. And I'm in favor of having this extra output.
>
> Two questions/thoughts would be:
>
> 1) If this is a "backwards-incompatible" change (is it?) should it be
> reserved for the next major version upgrade (2.0) ?
>
> 2) Use of a flag to pts membership to include (or not include) explicit
> and implicit membership, as I might very well want to filter the
> output... the question then becomes which way should be the "default"?
>
> thanks.
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 09:49:29AM -0400, Jeffrey E Altman wrote:
> > The Protection Service groups fall into two categories.   Those with
> > explicit membership lists and those with implicit membership lists.   For
> > example, the "system:anyuser" and "system:authuser" groups are implicit
> > whereas "system:administrators", "system:ptsviewers", and
> > "system:authuser@foreign-realm" groups are explicit.
> >
> > The output of "pts membership" only includes memberships in explicit
> > membership groups.   This has a negative impact inexperienced end users
> that
> > might be unaware that they are members of the "system:anyuser" and
> > "system:authuser" groups. This behavior also leads to an inconsistency
> > between the behavior for foreign and local users because foreign users
> are
> > not members of "system:authuser" and are members of
> > "system:authuser@foreign" which is included in the membership list
> because
> > that group has an explicit membership list.
> >
> > The AuriStorFS  Protection service also makes a distinction between
> "user"
> > and "machine" or "network" entities where "machine" and "network"
> entities
> > are not members of the "system:authuser" or "system:authuser@foreign"
> > groups.   This distinction is not apparent from the output of "pts
> > membership" because of the exclusion of implicit groups.
> >
> > AuriStor is considering a change to "pts membership" output to include
> > implicit memberships in the output of "pts membership". With this change
> the
> > output of these commands
> >
> >   $ pts membership anonymous
> >   Groups anonymous (id: 32766) is a member of:
> >
> >   $ pts membership testuser
> >   Groups anonymous (id: 112) is a member of:
> >
> >   $ pts membership testuser@foreign
> >   Groups anonymous (id: 43282) is a member of:
> >     system:authuser@foreign
> >
> > becomes
> >
> >   $ pts membership anonymous
> >   Groups anonymous (id: 32766) is a member of:
> >     system:anyuser
> >
> >   $ pts membership testuser
> >   Groups anonymous (id: 112) is a member of:
> >     system:anyuser
> >     system:authuser
> >
> >   $ pts membership testuser@foreign
> >   Groups anonymous (id: 43282) is a member of:
> >     system:authuser@foreign
> >     system:anyuser
> >
> > The question for cell admins is whether anyone is aware of any internal
> > scripts which process the output of "pts membership" which will break as
> a
> > result of the inclusion of the implicit groups "system:anyuser" and
> > "system:authuser" in output.
> >
> > Your assistance is appreciated.
> >
> > Jeffrey Altman
> > AuriStor, Inc.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ********************************
> David William Botsch
> Programmer/Analyst
> @CornellCNF
> bot...@cnf.cornell.edu
> ********************************
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
>
-- 
Edward A. Rude
Systems Administrator - Unix Systems
Division of Information Technology

Reply via email to