Today I got the "sync" RBAC working, but I need to give it some more thought. The extra challenge with this parts is that "having permission to read a Remote" is already defined in one place, on FileRemoteAccessPolicy, yet the AccessPolicy that needs to perform the enforcement is FileRepositoryAccessPolicy for its "sync" action. This is a bit challenging considering the following goals:
* We don't want to duplicate code, e.g. having the FileRepositoryAccessControl begin to inspect permissions for FileRemote directly, when FileRemoteAccessPolicy already does that * Currently permissions are granted at two levels: Model-level and File-level permissions and permissions are granted from either level. * We want to keep the policy in charge. If we start to bury the behavior in methods and functions then policy writers are no longer in control. All of ^ together tells me that I should work on creating two things next: 1) A way for policy writers to express which parameter refers to objects that also need their permissions checked. For example the policy should be able to say "remote is a parameter and it needs X permission". This is akin to the has_module_level_perms and has_obj_level_perms here except we also need to identify which parameter is being checked instead of the object the AccessPolicy itself governs. 2) A single way to check model-level and object-level permissions at once and allow if *either* passes. We would still allow policy writers to call either model-level or file-level checks also. I'll work on ^ next. Ideas and feedback are welcome. I pushed no new code today because it's a mess and not runnable at my stopping point. On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 6:18 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> wrote: > Here's another push to the branch (it includes the following additions): > https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/compare/master...bmbouter:rbac-PoC?expand=1 > > * A FileRepositoryAccessPolicy which provides RBAC for Repositories (not > yet sync) > * A new Mixin allowing the two policies to share some common components > > Next up: > * have the pup_file define the fileContentAdmin group programmatically > * Extend the FileRepositoryAccessPolicy to restrict sync operations > * Write up and organize the PoC into a clear, organized format > > Also of interest today @ttereshc and I had a great convo asking what to do > about potential problems when we use Django groups to be a "role". My write > up will address this in more detail than I can go into here. We are also > looking at what the django-role-permissions project could offer us: > https://django-role-permissions.readthedocs.io/en/stable/utils.html > > I expect the PoC to be done by tomorrow and write-up by Monday, so I'm > going to schedule the public review meeting for next week towards the end > of the week. > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:49 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> Moar progress! Today the following things got done: Today's changes are >> available here: >> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/compare/master...bmbouter:rbac-PoC?expand=1 >> >> * Got scoped querysets working! This restricts list views to only show >> objects a user has permissions to view. A db reset was all that was needed >> I think I didn't have all the changes in when I applied my earlier >> migrations >> * Added "detail view" restriction, and while it's in the policy and >> working DRF does a strange thing on "retrieve" where if it's not in the >> queryset (due to scoping ^) the user receives a 404, not a permission denied >> * Got permissions cleaning up on resource deletion now too >> >> Next up: >> * have the pup_file define the fileContentAdmin group programmatically >> * Make similar policies for FileRepository which governs itself and the >> "sync" action >> * Write up and organize the PoC into a clear, organized format >> >> Questions and feedback are welcome! >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:54 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Lots of progress today! I have a mostly-complete policy for RBAC for >>> FileRemote. It's surprising how little code all of this ended up being. >>> >>> Here's the actual RBAC stuff, it's all in pulp_file: >>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/compare/master...bmbouter:rbac-PoC?expand=1 >>> Here's the parts that go in core. Note the LDAP stuff is all optional, >>> the only real requirement are two lines 1) enabling guardian in >>> INSTALLED_APPS and 2) adding it as an AuthenticationBackend: >>> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/compare/master...bmbouter:rbac-PoC >>> >>> I have some "how to use notes" here: >>> https://hackmd.io/DRqGFyRsSDmN7E4TtOPf-w The idea is that it >>> implements the FileRemote portions of this requirements docs: >>> https://hackmd.io/kZ1oYp8TTkeuC5KL_ffjGQ >>> >>> Here is the short list of things for FileRemote that still don't work. >>> This is mainly so I remember what to do next. :) >>> * The get_objects_for_user >>> <https://django-guardian.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api/guardian.shortcuts.html#get-objects-for-user> >>> from DjangoGuardian I don't think it likes Master/Detail or maybe it's >>> how/where I'm using it. I haven't yet debugged this. For this reason it >>> doesn't provide list restriction >>> * It still needs "detail view" restriction. This is straightforward. >>> * The group should be programmatically defined, in this case it was >>> "defined in LDAP". It could *also* live in LDAP (or other external group >>> definition system) but the plugin builds permissions off of it so it should >>> also define it. This is easy. >>> >>> Feedback is welcome. I'm going to continue building this and then >>> schedule a public review of FileRemote, Content modification for file >>> repos, and sync restriction next week. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:14 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> # ldap PoC updates >>>> Now users, groups, and group membership are populating from ldap >>>> automatically on login (with auth backed by ldap also)! I'll be sharing my >>>> configs for both ldap and how to configure django-auth-ldap >>>> <https://django-auth-ldap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/example.html> here >>>> soon in an organized way. This was done with django-auth-ldap and 0 >>>> customization to pulp code. It's 100% enabled through settings so this work >>>> is more of an approach we can document for users that they can enable and >>>> not a feature Pulp ships itself. >>>> >>>> # django-admin progress >>>> Thanks to @alikins existing PRs, I got django admin enabled and able to >>>> view/edit users, groups, group membership, and permissions at both the user >>>> and group levels. This is important because this will be the primary >>>> mechanism of administrators. This part is looking good. >>>> >>>> # new resources to help us out >>>> Through collaboration with @ttereshc and someone off list named >>>> @adelton (who actually authored this reference approach >>>> <https://www.adelton.com/django/external-authentication-for-django-projects> >>>> I referenced early on in this exploration), this very cool repository of >>>> testing tools was identified: https://github.com/adelton/webauthinfra >>>> It has a treasure trove of testing containers which Pulp devs in the future >>>> can test against. It keeps the user/group check in the apache which is fine >>>> alternative to the django-auth-ldap approach above. Pulp doesn't have to >>>> choose, it could work with either just configured differently. The pending >>>> PoC outline will go over these alternative approaches in detail. >>>> >>>> # Next Steps: back to the PoC itself >>>> Now that we have demonstrated good options of external >>>> users/groups/membership loading into Pulp we can confidently move back to >>>> finishing the RBAC PoC itself. I've started back into this. So the >>>> remaining work are the two steps below: >>>> >>>> 1. Finish the PoC that uses RBAC to restrict remotes, sync, and >>>> repository content modification. Currently I prototyped restriction of >>>> operations on Remotes, but I need to replicate the access policies to >>>> Repositories and Sync next. >>>> 2. Write it up and share it. >>>> 3. Schedule public meeting to review it (targeting next-week) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 5:09 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I got the LDAP users both authenticating and importing into Pulp! Next >>>>> I'll do the groups and then I think the ldap parts will be done. >>>>> >>>>> FYI: I'm going to write up the implementation design and have that >>>>> come with this proof of concept code . This will let us know what choices >>>>> it makes, why it makes them, and we can determine if these are the right >>>>> choices together. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:57 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I got a lot further on this today. I have the test ldap setup with >>>>>> several test users and groups. I have django-auth-ldap configured mostly >>>>>> authenticating username/password against ldap instead of the internal >>>>>> database first. Once that is fully working the users will auto-populate >>>>>> into django and the groups should follow easily. >>>>>> >>>>>> Once that's done I'll be unblocked to finish the RBAC PoC. The rest >>>>>> of the parts are straightforward given the testing I've already done. >>>>>> More >>>>>> updates to come. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:03 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I got the ldap reference implementation performing auth really >>>>>>> nicely against a test ldap with this guide: >>>>>>> https://www.nginx.com/blog/nginx-plus-authenticate-users/ Now there >>>>>>> are some new challenges though: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Great that we can auth users, but we need nginx to >>>>>>> extract-and-forward the group information to Pulp itself. That way a >>>>>>> middleware can create the user AND group info in the backend. >>>>>>> * we have to figure this out all again in Apache... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe we should be integrating Pulp directly against >>>>>>> django-auth-ldap [0]. I am going to try that next. The work I've done >>>>>>> isn't >>>>>>> 100% reusable there, but most of it is because the test server and >>>>>>> configs >>>>>>> I used can all be reused directly with django-auth-ldap. The concern >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> this approach is that we would be supporting LDAP (and transitively >>>>>>> Active >>>>>>> Directory) but are there other directory services Pulp needs to support? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also emailed Bin Li asking for info on how their user and group >>>>>>> management works. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:48 AM Adrian Likins <alik...@redhat.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 8:23 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) django admin (the built in django UI) will be the mechanism >>>>>>>>> administrators use to assign permissions to users and groups. This >>>>>>>>> means >>>>>>>>> the use of django admin with pulp is very likely (to me). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hopefully https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/705 will be >>>>>>>> useful here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) externally defined users and groups will need to be >>>>>>>>> "replicated" to django's db at login time, probably using headers >>>>>>>>> from the >>>>>>>>> webserver This is consistent w/ the approach recommended here: >>>>>>>>> https://www.adelton.com/django/external-authentication-for-django-projects >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is more or less what galaxy_ng ends up doing, at least for the >>>>>>>> scenarios where it runs hosted with external SSO. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/ansible/galaxy_ng/blob/master/galaxy_ng/app/auth/auth.py#L51 >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
