cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Min Chen <>
Subject Re: [Proposal]CloudStack IAM plugin feature (CLOUDSTACK-5920)
Date Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:15:52 GMT
Hi Rajani,
	See my answers in line.

On 1/22/14 6:29 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <> wrote:

>some questions I have:
>1. Do we need groups and policies? Cant we derive group information from
>policy applied? ie) any user can become domain admin if he is given the
>right policies.

[Min] Yes, Group and Policy are standard IAM concepts used to perform
access control which community all understand, it is better for us to
follow the common standard avoid confusion for adoption. With group and
policy, administrator can easily manipulate access controls in his/her
organization. If there is no group, to assign permissions to a bunch of
principals (in our case, accounts), admin has to assign group of policies
to each principal one by one, which is tedious and error-prone.

>2. Can we restrict the permission to Resource Type's CRUD? permissions at
>api level seems to be like too much of control and information to save.

[Min] We thought of this before. But this involves a big effort for us to
category each of our 300 API to classify which CRUD operation is involved
in the api and on which resource type. That is not an easy refactor
effort. In phase 2, we may consider figuring out a way to categorize APIs
to that level.

>From: Prachi Damle []
>Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:27 AM
>Subject: [Proposal]CloudStack IAM plugin feature (CLOUDSTACK-5920)
>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
>- 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.
>Prachi & Min

View raw message