cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prachi Damle <>
Subject RE: [Proposal]CloudStack IAM plugin feature (CLOUDSTACK-5920)
Date Wed, 22 Jan 2014 02:04:10 GMT

-----Original Message-----
From: Chiradeep Vittal [] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Proposal]CloudStack IAM plugin feature (CLOUDSTACK-5920)

Also not clear on how the dedicateXyZ problem is being solved in Phase1 (or not).
>>[Prachi] Yes, the dedicate APIs is not yet included

Can I (end user) create a VPC and allow user Bob to create VMs in my VPC?
>>[Prachi]  So looks like for current CS VPC, there is no access checks done on the
VPC entry itself - the access checks are all the individual networks of the VPC tiers. 

So if  user A grants access to the network n1 in the VPC to another user B - then user B can
invoke deployVM API using this networkId.
To do this user A has to:
- Create a policy with 'Allow' permission to this networkId (scope: Resource, scopeId: n1,
resourceType: Network) for 'listNetworks' action/ 'use' access 
- Attach this policy to a group and add account to that group.

For phase1 we are still thinking if the IAM APIs (creation of group/policies/granting) should
be root admin only to restrict the scope of the feature.

But the model does support  granting at three levels and will support such use cases:
    - Grant by Domain and Resource Type: grant permissions to all resources of the given resource
type under the given domain.
   -  Grant by Account and Resource Type: grant permissions to all resources of the given
resource type under the given account.
    - Grant by individual resource: grant permission to an individual resource.


On 1/21/14 4:20 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <> wrote:

>SAML 2.0 is not precluded with this design, it seems.
>I found the FS both confusing and illuminating. I think what confuses 
>me is the interchange of 'acl', 'iam' and 'policy'.
>Especially since ACL is used in the networking context.
>IMO, renaming the tables and APIs to not use ACL but IAM would clarify 
>For example:
>Tables: iam_policy, iam_policy_permission, iam_group
>API: createIAMGroup createIAMPolicy createIAMPermission 
>addIAMPermissionToAclPolicy attachPolicyToIAMGroup addAccountToIAMGroup 
>(or better, house the api under the client/iam/?command= sub-url)
>Annotation: @IamPolicyCheck
>Also, there is no reference to what one would normally find in an IAM 
>guide: Principal, Role, etc.
>Am I right in assuming that Account is the Principal here? Are there 
>roles, or even a default role?
>What is envisioned for Phase 2, 3Š
>Ideally, this is a separate service that can be enhanced by 3rd parties.
>As an example, I want to provide my DBaaS service on an ACS-powered cloud.
>I want to utilize the same Principals (and IAM infrastructure) rather 
>than provide my own.
>On 1/21/14 2:01 PM, "Erik Weber" <> wrote:
>>On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Prachi Damle
>>> Min and myself would like to propose an identity and access 
>>> management plugin for CloudStack for the ACS 4.4 release.
>>> Here is the functional spec we have drafted for the first phase:
>>> Currently CloudStack provides very limited IAM services and there 
>>> are several drawbacks:
>>> - Offers few roles out of the box (user and admin) with prebaked 
>>> access control. There is no way to create customized policies and permissions.
>>> - Some resources have access control baked into them. E.g., shared 
>>> networks, projects etc.
>>> - We have to create special dedicateXXX APIs to grant permissions to 
>>> resources.
>>> - Also it does not provide the flexibility to integrate with other 
>>> RBAC implementations say using AD/LDAP
>>> Goal for this feature would be to address these limitations and 
>>>offer true  IAM services in a phased manner.
>>> As a first phase, we need to separate out the current access control 
>>>into  a separate component based on the standard IAM terminologies. 
>>>Also we need  to create an access check mechanism to be used by the 
>>>API layer to avoid  the checks scattered over the api/service layer. 
>>>The read/listing APIs need  to be refactored accordingly to consider 
>>>the policy based access granting.
>>> Please provide feedback/suggestions anyone has.
>>Would love to see SAML 2.0 support, but any IAM solution is a good 
>>Erik Weber

View raw message