Will dozens to a hundred groups or so on one user cause issues? :) Thanks, Kevin
________________________________ From: Morgan Fainberg Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 7:23:22 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][barbican] Regarding exposing X-Group-xxxx in token validation In general I am of the opinion with the move to Fernet there is no good reason we should avoid adding the group information into the token. --Morgan Sent via mobile On Jun 3, 2015, at 18:44, Dolph Mathews <dolph.math...@gmail.com<mailto:dolph.math...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:58 PM, John Wood <john.w...@rackspace.com<mailto:john.w...@rackspace.com>> wrote: Hello folks, There has been discussion about adding user group support to the per-secret access control list (ACL) feature in Barbican. Hence secrets could be marked as accessible by a group on the ACL rather than an individual user as implemented now. Our understanding is that Keystone does not pass along a user’s group information during token validation however (such as in the form of X-Group-Ids/X-Group-Names headers passed along via Keystone middleware). The pre-requisite for including that information in the form of headers would be adding group information to the token validation response. In the case of UUID, it would be pre-computed and stored in the DB at token creation time. In the case of PKI, it would be encoded into the PKI token and further bloat PKI tokens. And in the case of Fernet, it would be included at token validation time. Including group information, however, would also let us efficient revoke tokens using token revocation events when group membership is affected in any way (user being removed from a group, a group being deleted, or a group-based role assignment being revoked). The OS-FEDERATION extension is actually already including groups in tokens today, as a required part of the federated workflow. We'd effectively be introducing that same behavior into the core Identity API (see the federated token example): https://github.com/openstack/keystone-specs/blob/master/api/v3/identity-api-v3-os-federation-ext.rst#request-an-unscoped-os-federation-token This would allow us to address bugs such as: https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1268751 In the past, we shied away from including groups if only to avoid bloating the size of PKI tokens any further (but now we have Fernet tokens providing a viable alternative). Are there any other reasons not to add group information to the token validation response? Would the community consider this a useful feature? Would the community consider adding this support to Liberty? Thank you, John __________________________________________________________________________ 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<mailto: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
