mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Commiter access to Jenkins Sevrer
Date Fri, 05 Jan 2018 19:13:06 GMT
Apparently Apache supports OATH, so I am open to either.
Good idea for the docker thing.

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Marco de Abreu <
marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote:

> GitHub SSO allows the neat feature that login and permission can be
> selected depending on the access rights a user has to a project. Somebody
> with write access (committers) would be get different permissions than
> somebody with only read access.
>
> We could check back with Apache for SSO, but this would involve Apache
> infra. We could put it up to a vote whether to use GitHub or Apache SSO.
>
> In order to reproduce a build failure we have been thinking about changing
> the ci_build.sh in such a way that it can be run manually without Jenkins.
> The setup I took over binds the Jenkins work directory into the docker
> containers and uses a few hacks which are hard to reproduce locally. We
> plan to reengineer this script to make it easier to run manually.
> But making the AMI public is a good idea! We plan to make the whole
> infrastructure code (based on Terraform) completely public - at the moment
> it's in a private repository as it contains credentials, but they will be
> moved to KMS soon. It would definitely be a good approach to just supply
> the AMI so everybody could recreate the environment in their own account.
>
> -Marco
>
> Am 05.01.2018 7:51 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" <cjolivier01@gmail.com>:
>
> Well, login to the Jenkins server, I would imagine.
>
> github or Apache SSO (does Apache support OAUTH?) seems like a good idea as
> long as there's a way to not let everyone with a github account log in.
>
> Access to actual slave machines could be more restricted, I imagine.
>
> Eventually, a public current AMI for a build slave would be good in order
> to reproduce build or test problems that can't be reproduced locally.
>
> wdyt?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Marco de Abreu <
> marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would it be an acceptable solution if we add SSO or do you also want
> access
> > to the actual AWS account and all machines?
> >
> > Yes, the build jobs are automatically getting created for new branches.
> >
> > -Marco
> >
> > Am 05.01.2018 7:35 nachm. schrieb "Marco de Abreu" <
> > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com>:
> >
> > I totally agree, this is not the way it should work in an Apache Project.
> > It's running on an isengard account, meaning it is only accessible for
> > Amazon employees. The problem is that a compromised account could cause
> > damage up to 170,000$ per day. There are alarms in place to notice those
> > cases, but we still have to be very careful. These high limits have been
> > chosen due to auto scaling being added within the next week's.
> >
> > I'd be happy to introduce a committer into the CI process and all the
> > necessary steps as well as granting them permission. The only restriction
> > being that it has to be and Amazon employee and access to console, master
> > and slave only being possible from the Corp network.
> >
> > There is no open ticket. What would you like to request?
> >
> > -Marco
> >
> >
> > Am 05.01.2018 7:22 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" <cjolivier01@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > Like John and other mentors were saying, it's not proper for CI to be a
> > closed/inaccessible environment.  Is it running on an Isengard account or
> > in PROD or CORP or just generic EC2?  I think that we should remedy this.
> > It's very strange that no committers have access at all.  Is there a
> ticket
> > open to IPSEC?
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Marco de Abreu <
> > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Chris,
> > >
> > > At the moment this is not possible due Amazon AppSec (Application
> > security)
> > > restrictions which does not permit user data and credentials on these
> > > machines.
> > >
> > > I have been thinking about adding single sign on bound to GitHub, but
> we
> > > would have to check back with AppSec.
> > >
> > > Is the reason for your request still the ability to start and stop
> > running
> > > builds?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Marco
> > >
> > > Am 05.01.2018 7:11 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" <
> cjolivier01@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >
> > > Marco,
> > >
> > > Are all committers able to get login access to the Jenkins Server?  If
> > not,
> > > why?
> > >
> > > -Chris
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message