Another productive RBAC day! See the latest code at the links below. Here's what's new:
* policy is now shorter thanks to machinery checking both model-level and object-level permissions with one call. The other two are also available * sync is now restricted on both 'modify_repo_content' permissions AND read permission on the remote being used to sync * modify is now restricted on 'modify_repo_content' permission * moved the permission checking machinery to be "global checks" * added data migration that sets is_staff=True, so the django-admin interface can be used (this is getting a slight rework tomorrow morning tho) https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/compare/master...bmbouter:rbac-PoC https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/compare/master...bmbouter:rbac-PoC Tomorrow's demo is advertised here. It will also include an overview of some of the unsolved problems with some possible solutions. Cheers, Brian On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 5:08 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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