[Engine-devel] Managing permissions on network

[Charlie]

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.

--Charlie


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Itamar Heim <iheim at redhat.com> 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 at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel