ACK, thanks Aline, I think this will work. On 07/09/2014 12:13 AM, Aline Manera wrote:
Thanks, Wen Wang and Yu Xin for the replies! I guess we get an agreement on that :-)
So the "mode"/"access-level" attribute will be only used when the user has a "user" role, and ignored when the user has "admin" role - as he/she will have full access to kimchi. Right?
About the mode values: - none: do not show the tab - admin: full access including 'edit/delete/start/stop/use' - read-only: read-only access including 'start/stop/use' - byInstance: each resource will have its configuration sent by the backend (JSON)
For now, we will have: - host tab: none - template tab: none - network tab: read-only - storage tab: read-only - guest tab: admin
Remembering the "admin" mode in the guest tab does not allow a user to create a new vm, ok?
And for the /login API we will have the "roles" parameter (replacing the "sudo" parameter) that has 2 valid values by now: admin or user
{ ... roles: [admin|user] }
About how store that data in the front end, I am OK in using sessionstorage or cookie as Wen Wang proposed.
ACK?
If so, I can work in the backend patches.
On 07/08/2014 07:00 AM, Yu Xin Huo wrote:
On 7/8/2014 4:01 AM, Aline Manera wrote:
On 07/07/2014 07:35 AM, Aline Manera wrote:
On 07/07/2014 06:45 AM, Wen Wang wrote:
Hi all,
Due to the fact that Kimchi needs authorization feature to be designed. I an posting my point of view below of how I thought about doing it, including how I plan doing it in the front-end and request for help for the back end support.
Kimchi changed to a traditional login patten in last release that makes Kimchi more secure to use. It Before login, the front-end can hardly get any html information before user actually login.
If the user is not logged in, Kimchi server will always return 401 for all the requests. As the front end make requests to server to populate the html, if the user hardly gets any html he/she will get it empty without any useful information At least, it is suppose to work like that.
As we discussed, root
user will have full access to Kimchi whereas the non-root user will have restricted privileges. It will be easier and more decent to show the proper tabs to certain users that distinguished by the back-end. Now the tabs are generated by an xml file generated from the back-end that show all 5 tabs. We probably need to have the '*Host*' and '*template*' tab_removed_ for non-root users, which is recommended to be done in the back-end.
I suggest to add one parameter to the tabs in the xml.
Example: access="restricted" which means only root users can see those tabs
And in the front end while loading the tabs, we need to query this parameter and act accordingly (ie, do not display the tab with this parameter for a non-root user)
<tabs> <tab access="restricted"> <title>Host</title> <path>tabs/host.html> </tab> <tab> <title>Guests</title> <path>tabs/guests.html> </tab> ... </tabs>
I've just thought more about that and maybe it won't be enough Probably, for each tab we should describe which view display according to user role
<tab> <title>Host</title> <path>tabs/host.html> <views> <view role="admin" mode="full" /> <view role="user" mode="none" /> </views> </tab>
For "mode" we can have: - full: full access to tab content - none: tab should not be displayed - resource: user can manage the resource he/she is assigned to but not create a new one - read-only: user can see the resources but not manage them or create a new one
And in the /login request we return a list of user roles
{ username: alinefm, roles: [admin] groups: [group1, group2] }
For now, only one value will be returned for "roles" but later one user can have multiples roles: vm-user, network-admin, etc
For sprint 1, if a VM assigned to a user, this user will have full access to VM, so we need to handle below at client side, 1. identify whether a user have access to a certain tab, non-root access 'Guest', 'Network', 'Storage' 2. identify the actions that a user can perform in a tab, non-root, admin to 'Guest', read-only to 'Storage' and 'Network'. So for sprint 1, design below: <tab access-level="*none*"> -- do not show the tab <title>Host</title> <path>tabs/host.html> </tab> <tab access-level="*admin*"> -- full access including 'edit/delete/start/stop/use' <title>Host</title> <path>tabs/host.html> </tab> <tab access-level="*user*"> -- read-only access including 'start/stop/use' <title>Host</title> <path>tabs/host.html> </tab>
For the whole release, we have that, assign user to a VM with 'admin' or 'user' role. so we need to handle that, for a list of VMs, some VMs, user have full access, and some are read-only, this need to be handled by instance. so design below: <tab access-level="*none*"> -- do not show the tab <title>Host</title> <path>tabs/host.html> </tab> <tab access-level="*admin*"> -- full access including 'edit/delete/start/stop/use' <title>Host</title> <path>tabs/host.html> </tab> <tab access-level="*user*"> -- read-only access including 'start/stop/use' <title>Host</title> <path>tabs/host.html> </tab> <tab access-level="*byInstance*"> -- a list of instances, each instance will have access-level for the user like 'admin' or 'user' role on a certain VM. <title>Host</title> <path>tabs/host.html> </tab>
Also there need to be information provided to the front-end like the user-name, user-role as well as user-group, etc. that indicate user identity after login.
The browser need the information to give certain
privileges to certain users and disable the unnecessary functions. My suggestion is to have these 3 parameters passed: ***user-name, user-role* as well as *user-group*. There is a better extendibility to user the user-role other than isRoot so that we can define more roles in the future. As fact that we have only defined two roles now, the user-role parameter can be divided into root and guest based on user is root or non-root.
Today that information is returned as response for the request /login
POST /login {username: alinefm, password: mypassword} { username: alinefm, sudo: true, groups: [group1, group2] }
If "sudo" is true, the user has root permissions, otherwise it is a non-root user.
Based on that you said, I propose to change the "sudo" parameter to "role" and it the user has root permissions we set it to "admin", otherwise, "user"
POST /login {username: alinefm, password: mypassword} { username: alinefm, role: admin, groups: [group1, group2] }
These message can get from *sessiondada*, *cookie *or
passed according to a query. the way passing the info of the user is still under discussion.
As you will get that info after a login request I propose to store that info locally on JS
Request for your advises.
Best Regards
Wang Wen
_______________________________________________ Kimchi-devel mailing list Kimchi-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel
_______________________________________________ Kimchi-devel mailing list Kimchi-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel
_______________________________________________ Kimchi-devel mailing list Kimchi-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel
_______________________________________________ Kimchi-devel mailing list Kimchi-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel