On 05/15/2015 11:12 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
And if its tied into nova, perhaps the service account password never is given
to the vm, but the vm has a mechanism for fetching fresh keystone tokens, maybe
a special url on the metadata server.
Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________________
From: Fox, Kevin M
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 7:56 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Murano] [Mistral] [Zaqar] [Keystone] SSH workflow
action
I think we have to be very careful with cheep, easy, user provisionable user
accounts. I know we've had a hard enough time getting clouds to land at our
organization because policies had to be adapted. I think the policies around
User account allocation and particularly password strength, password rotation
and administratively disabling them, will be the biggest challenge to the
policies yet.
Now if it was kind of a different thing, "service accounts", that might be more
palatable to the powers that be.
Thanks,
Kevin
I'd like service accounts to be tied in with X509 validation and not
even be able to do Password. We can use Barbican to do the actual X509
issue.
Revocations might be an issue; We need to make sure the Keystone server
checks a CRL from Barbican.
Kerberos is a better option. With FreeIPA, it is a viable alternative
even for smaller deployments.
________________________________________
From: Adam Young [ayo...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:38 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Murano] [Mistral] [Zaqar] [Keystone] SSH workflow
action
On 05/12/2015 09:43 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 12/05/15 13:06, Georgy Okrokvertskhov wrote:
There is one thing which still bothers me. It is authentication. Right
now with separate RabbitMQ instance we keep VMs authentication isolated
from OpenStack infra.
This is still a problem if you want to use webhooks (Heat autoscaling,
Murano actions) via our own authentication models. If we plan to use
Zaqar it will be interesting to know how Zaqar solves this issue.
Aha, if you'd read my blog post you would know the answer ;)
There's no specific provision for this in Zaqar at the moment AFAIK.
The problem is really Keystone: it was never designed for
authenticating applications to the cloud, only real live users.
We need to fix this, in Keystone & Oslo, for the benefit of all
application-facing services. Some work has already started:
- Keystone can now support separate backends for separate domains, so
even if you are backed by read-only LDAP you can create service users
in a separate DB-backed domain:
http://adam.younglogic.com/2014/08/getting-service-users-out-of-ldap/
- Work is planned on "Dynamic Policy" to make the authorisation model
more powerful:
http://adam.younglogic.com/2014/11/dynamic-policy-in-keystone/
I'm not sure that this goes far enough though (although I don't
completely grok the implications of Dynamic Policy). We really want
users to be able to define their own policy for application accounts
that they create, and at an even more fine-grained level, so a common
library for this sort of authorisation would be helpful.
Yeah, we need Authorization as a Service. Was discussing this earlier
today; how do we assign Admin for Wordpress without accidentally
granting the user the ability to create new virtual machines or networks.
One part is namespacing of roles. Nova:admin vs wordpress:admin.
User would also need to be able to register new policy enforcement
points for the code. These would be predefined for big applications
(Wordpress) but would have to be well thought out for others.
I also don't think we want to make users get a token before perform
every action. THe apps should be able to query the information they
need from Keystone when the user comes in. It is a combination of
Fedeartion, mapping, list_roles-for_user_and_project and extending of
policy.
I'm sure this will come up next week.
Frankly, I don't think that this is a good idea to use Keystone
credentials or tokens for MQ clients on VMs. This topic, probably,
deserves its own e-mail thread.
Keystone credentials _are_ the answer, but they must not be the
*user's* Keystone credentials.
I can tell you how Heat does this right now for authenticating
application callbacks for WaitConditions. It's not exactly pretty, but
it works. Basically we create the application users in a separate
domain and then do extra authorisation checks ourselves. Steve Hardy
wrote a comprehensive summary on his blog:
http://hardysteven.blogspot.com/2014/04/heat-auth-model-updates-part-2-stack.html
So the mechanisms are there. In the short term we'd need some
cross-project co-operation to define a system through which we can do
this across projects (i.e. Murano or any other service can create a
user and have Zaqar authorise it for listening on a particular queue).
Maybe this is an extra parameter when creating a queue in Zaqar to
also create a user account in a separate domain (the way Heat does)
with permission to send and/or receive only on that particular queue
and return its credentials. That would be easier to secure and easier
to implement than having other services create the user accounts
themselves.
I think the user accounts (or consumers as oauth calls them) should be
cheap, and easy to create . I see no reason to try to limit them.
Ideally, we would use something like X509 in order for them to talk to
Keystone; that work is under way in Keystone already. Kerberos works
for those who want to use it with a Keytab.
In the medium term hopefully we'll be able to come up with a less
hacky solution that uses Oslo libraries to manage all of the user
creation and authorisation.
Why Oslo oand not Keystone? Why do we need a new abstraction?
It will be interesting to discuss this with Keystone team. What is it is
possible to have a token which is restricted to be authenticated to
specific API URL like GET /v1/queues/<queue-id>/
Yes, we should definitely discuss this with the Keystone team and make
sure they're getting feedback from all of the many groups who need it
so that they can prioritise the work appropriately :)
Endpoint binding of tokens is proposed already. I have a spec out for
more constraints. We need a way to annotate them in the token, and then
policy can certainly be enforced on any data in the token.
I suspect that what we will have is a two pass policy check; the first
will be all global options (endpoint binding, etc) and the second will
be API specific checks.
cheers,
Zane.
Thanks
Gosha
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov
<mailto:kevin....@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
+1
________________________________________
From: Zane Bitter [zbit...@redhat.com <mailto:zbit...@redhat.com>]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:15 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Murano] [Mistral] SSH workflow action
Hello!
This looks like a perfect soapbox from which to talk about my
favourite
issue ;)
You're right about the ssh idea, for the reasons discussed
related to
networking and a few more that weren't (e.g. users shouldn't have
to and
generally don't want to give their private SSH keys to cloud
services).
I didn't know, or had forgotten, about the message queue
implementation
in Murano and while I think that's the correct shape for the
solution,
as long as the service in question is not multi-tenant capable
it's a
non-starter for a public clouds at least and probably many private
clouds as well (after all, if you don't need multi-tenancy then
why are
you using OpenStack?).
There's been a tendency within the application-facing OpenStack
projects
to hack together whatever local solutions to problems that we can in
order to make progress without being held up by other projects.
Let's
take a moment to acknowledge that Heat is both the earliest and the
biggest offender here, and that I am as culpable as anyone in the
current state of affairs. There are multiple reasons for how
things have
gone - part of it is that it turned out we developed services in the
wrong order, starting at too high a level. Part of it, frankly,
is due
to that element of the community that maintains a hostile position
toward application-facing services and have used their influence
in the
community to maintain a disincentive against integrating projects
together.[1] (If deployment of your project is discouraged that's
one
thing, but if it depends on another project whose deployment is also
being discouraged then the hurdle you have to jump over is twice the
height.)
That said, I think we're at the point where we are hurting ourselves
more than anyone else is by failing to come up with coherent,
cross-project solutions.
The problem articulated in this thread is not an isolated one.
It's part
of a more general pattern that affects a lot of projects: we need
a way
for the cloud to communicate to applications running in it. Angus
started a recent discussion of this already on the list.[2] The
requirements, IMHO, are roughly:
* Reliability - we must be able to guarantee delivery to
applications
* Asynchrony - the cloud cannot block on user-controlled
processes
* Multitenancy - this is table stakes for OpenStack
* Access control - even within tenants, we need to trust guest
VMs
minimally
IMNSHO Zaqar messages are the obvious choice for the transport
here. (Or
something very similar in shape to Zaqar - but it'd be much
better to
join forces with the Zaqar team to improve it where necessary
than to
start a new project.) I really believe that if we work together
to come
up with consistent solutions to these problems that keep popping up
across OpenStack, we can prove wrong all the naysayers who think
that
application-facing services are only for proprietary clouds. I
wrote up
my vision for why that's important and what there first steps are
here:
http://www.zerobanana.com/archive/2015/04/24#a-vision-for-openstack
Note that there are some subtleties that not everyone here will
be able
to contribute directly to fixing. For example, as I highlight in
that
post, Keystone is built around the concept that applications
never talk
to the cloud. But there are lots of other things people can work
on now
that would really make a big difference. For Mistral and Murano
specifically, and in rough order of priority:
* Add an action in Mistral for sending a message to a Zaqar
queue.
This is easy and there's no reason you couldn't do it right now.
* Encourage any deployers and distributors you know (or, ahem,
may
work for ;) to make Zaqar available as an option.
* Add a way to trigger a Mistral workflow with a Zaqar
message. This
is one piece in the puzzle to build user-configurable messaging
flows
between OpenStack services.[3]
* Make Zaqar an alternative to Rabbit for communicating to the
Murano
agent.
* Use your experience in implementing notifications over email
and the
like in Mistral to help the Zaqar team to add the notification
features
they've long been planning. These could take the form of
microservices
listening on a Zaqar queue. You get the reliable, asynchronous
queuing
semantics for free and *every* service and user can benefit from
your work.
Imagine if there were one place where we implemented reliable
queuing
semantics at cloud scale, and when we added e.g. long-polling or
WebSockets everyone could benefit immediately.[4] Imagine if
there were
one place for notifications, at cloud scale, for operators to
secure.
(How many webhook implementations are there in OpenStack right
now? How
many of them are actually secure against malicious users?) One
format
for messages between services so that users can connect up their own
custom pipelines. We're not that far away! All of this is within
reach
if we work together.
Thanks for reading. Please grab me at summit if you want to know
more; I
am always happy to bend the ear of anyone who will listen at
length on
this topic. As usual, I'll be the tall dude with the weird accent ;)
cheers,
Zane.
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180112/
[2]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-April/060748.html
[3]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-April/062617.html
[4]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-April/062619.html
On 06/05/15 11:42, Filip Blaha wrote:
> Hello
>
> We are considering implementing actions on services of a murano
> environment via mistral workflows. We are considering whether
mistral
> std.ssh action could be used to run some command on an instance.
Example
> of such action in murano could be restart action on Mysql DB
service.
> Mistral workflow would ssh to that instance running Mysql and run
> "service mysql restart". From my point of view trying to use
SSH to
> access instances from mistral workflow is not good
> idea but I would like to confirm it.
>
> The biggest problem I see there is openstack networking. Mistral
service
> running on some openstack node would not be able to access
instance via
> its fixed IP (e.g. 10.0.0.5) via SSH. Instance could accessed
via ssh
> from namespace of its gateway router e.g. "ip netns exec
qrouter-... ssh
> cirros@10.0.0.5 <mailto:cirros@10.0.0.5>" but I think it is not
good to rely on implementation
> detail of neutron and use it. In multinode openstack
deployment it
> could be even more complicated.
>
> In other words I am asking whether we can use std.ssh mistral
action to
> access instances via ssh on theirs fixed IPs? I think no but I
would
> like to confirm it.
>
> Thanks
> Filip
>
>
__________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe:
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
<http://openstack-dev-requ...@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-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
<http://openstack-dev-requ...@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-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
--
Georgy Okrokvertskhov
Architect,
OpenStack Platform Products,
Mirantis
http://www.mirantis.com <http://www.mirantis.com/>
Tel. +1 650 963 9828
Mob. +1 650 996 3284
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
openstack-dev-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
