Re: [Engine-devel] Managing permissions on network

On 11/13/2012 09:57 PM, Charlie wrote: > > Will any of these groups and/or permissions be drawn from LDAP? > > Frankly, system admins are not looking for yet another console to > manage permissions.

all users/groups come from LDAP. you just need to give permissions to these groups/users in ovirt. is that what you meant?

> > --Charlie > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Itamar Heim <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> On 11/13/2012 07:18 PM, Livnat Peer wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 13/11/12 15:39, Itamar Heim wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/13/2012 03:37 PM, Livnat Peer wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 13/11/12 15:19, Itamar Heim wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/13/2012 12:45 PM, Livnat Peer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Interesting point, I think that if a user has permission to create a >>>>>>> VM >>>>>>> from a specific template we should give him permission to use the >>>>>>> template networks on this VM implicitly upon the VM creation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> having a permission to a template does not mean a permission to the >>>>>> default network of that VM, especially as we'll use templates more as >>>>>> instance types. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another alternative is to require permission on the network as well as >>>>> the template. >>>>> I must say I don't really like it, although I agree with your comment, >>>>> we require too many operations for enabling a user to create a VM from >>>>> template (permission on the template, quota on the storage, >>>>> permissions >>>>> on the network, next we'll require a PHD ;)). >>>>> >>>>> Anyone has a better idea? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I assume most networks would be given either to 'everyone' or groups of >>>> users, not per user (and if the network is per user/tenant, then it >>>> must >>>> be done per user. >>> >>> >>> >>> Which reminds that I wanted to propose adding a property on a network >>> which is called public. >>> It's just a UI feature to give a NetworkUser on this network to >>> 'everyone'. It makes making a network public easier for the user. >>> >>> In addition during upgrade we should make all existing networks public >>> networks and not allocate specific permissions for users on networks. >>> >>> In addition it also means a user is given permission on a network and >>> then he can use it for any VM he owns. Isn't that problematic? We can't >>> limit a user to use a network on a specific VM. >> >> >> >> I think that's fine. >> don't let user edit that vm if you don't trust them. >> >> >>> >>>> i may not remember correctly, but i thought when giving quota to user >>>> we >>>> also give some permissions with it (on cluster and storage)? >>> >>> >>> >>> I am not sure what is the current implementation as it changed a lot, >>> but last I tracked we checked for either quota or permissions we did not >>> give implicit permissions when creating a quota. >>> >> >> gilad/doron? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Engine-devel mailing list >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >