Today I accomplished a few more things: * finished my ldap notes: https://hackmd.io/ED9UpscNSRW86Le3xNzVeg * moving the checks from a mixin to be "global checks" so they are available everywhere, this is a feature from drf-access-policy: https://rsinger86.github.io/drf-access-policy/reusable_conditions/ * added a has_obj_or_module_perms method allowing policy writers to just use that instad of carrying "two entries" in the policy, one for model-level, one for object-level
Need to: * clean up the "sync" policy code * Add global condition check facilities for the perms of a 'remote' param * add policy language restricting the /modify/ endpoint also for FileRepository * push my code New Challenge: We need to also have the permissions assignments happen for objects created by tasks. django-guardian recommends this happen inside signals ( https://django-guardian.readthedocs.io/en/latest/userguide/assign.html#assigning-permissions-inside-signals). The challenge (thanks @mdellweg for identifying) is that the user/group context information is well-known in the viewset but not in a task. Soooooo ... the idea is: 1. Switch the perms addition to the model itself via signals so it's automatic everywhere (including in tasks) 2. Preserve the user and group "request context" into the tasking system. I can see a straightforward path to how to do this so I plan to prototype this soon also. Feedback is welcome! On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:16 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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