ironic/doc/source/admin/secure-rbac.rst

Secure RBAC

Suggested Reading

It is likely an understatement to say that policy enforcement is a complex subject. It requires operational context to craft custom policy to meet general use needs. Part of this is why the Secure RBAC effort was started, to provide consistency and a "good" starting place for most users who need a higher level of granularity.

That being said, it would likely help anyone working to implement customization of these policies to consult some reference material in hopes of understanding the context.

• Keystone Adminstrator Guide - Service API Protection
• Ironic Scoped Role Based Access Control Specification

Historical Context - How we reached our access model

Ironic has reached the access model through an evolution the API and the data stored. Along with the data stored, the enforcement of policy based upon data stored in these fields.

• Ownership Information Storage
• Allow Node owners to Administer
• Allow Leasable Nodes

System Scoped

System scoped authentication is intended for "administrative" activites such as those crossing tenants/projects, as all tenants/projects should be visible to system scoped users in Ironic.

System scoped requests do not have an associated project_id value for the Keystone request authorization token utilized to speak with Ironic. These requests are translated through keystonemiddleware into values which tell Ironic what to do. Or to be more precise, tell the policy enforcement framework the information necessary to make decisions.

System scoped requests very much align with the access controls of Ironic before the Secure RBAC effort. The original custom role baremetal_admin privilges are identical to a system scoped admin's privilges. Similarlly baremetal_reader is identical to a system scoped reader. In these concepts, the admin is allowed to create/delete objects/items. The reader is allowed to read details about items and is intended for users who may need an account with read-only access for or front-line support purposes.

In addition to these concepts, a member role exists in the Secure RBAC use model. Ironic does support this role, and in general member role users in a system scope are able to perform basic updates/changes, with the exception of special fields like those to disable cleaning.

Project Scoped

Project scoped authentication is when a request token and associated records indicate an associated project_id value.

Legacy Behavior

The legacy behavior of API service is that all requests are treated as project scoped requests where access is governed using an "admin project". This behavior is deprecated. The new behavior is a delineation of access through system scoped and project scoped requests.

In essence, what would have served as an "admin project", is now system scoped usage.

Previously, Ironic API, by default, responded with access denied or permitted based upon the admin project and associated role. These responses would generate an HTTP 403 if the project was incorrect or if a user role.

Note

While Ironic has had the concept of an owner and a lessee, they are NOT used by default. They require custom policy configuration files to be used in the legacy operating mode.

Supported Endpoints

• /nodes
• /nodes/<uuid>/ports
• /nodes/<uuid>/portgroups
• /nodes/<uuid>/volume/connectors
• /nodes/<uuid>/volume/targets
• /nodes/<uuid>/allocation
• /ports
• /portgroups
• /volume/connectors
• /volume/targets
• /allocations

How Project Scoped Works

Ironic has two project use models where access is generally more delagative to an owner where access to a lessee is generally more utilitarian.

The purpose of an owner, is more to enable the System Operator to delegate much of the administrative activity of a Node to the owner. This may be because they physically own the hardware, or they are in charge of the node. Regardless of the use model that the fields and mechanics support, these fields are to support humans, and possibly services where applicable.

The purpose of a lessee is more for a tenant in their project to be able to have access to perform basic actions with the API. In some cases that may be to reprovision or rebuild a node. Ultimately that is the lessee's progative, but by default there are actions and field updates that cannot be performed by default. This is also governed by access level within a project.

These policies are applied in the way data is viewed and how data can be updated. Generally, an inability to view a node is an access permission issue in term of the project ID being correct for owner/lessee.

The ironic project has attempted to generally codify what we believe is reasonable, however operators may wish to override these policy settings. For details general policy setting details, please see /configuration/policy.

Field value visibility restrictions

Ironic's API, by default has a concept of filtering node values to prevent sensitive data from being leaked. System scoped users are subjected to basic restrictions, where as project scoped users are, by default, examined further and against additional policies. This threshold is controlled with the baremetal:node:get:filter_threshold.

By default, the following fields are masked on Nodes and are controlled by the associated policies. By default, owner's are able to see insight into the infrastucture, where as lessee users CANNOT view these fields by default.

• last_error - baremetal:node:get:last_error
• reservation - baremetal:node:get:reservation
• driver_internal_info - baremetal:node:get:driver_internal_info
• driver_info - baremetal:node:get:driver_info

Field update restrictions

Some of the fields in this list are restricted to System scoped users, or even only System Administrators. Some of these default restrictions are likely obvious. Owners can't change the owner. Lessee's can't change the owner.

• driver_info - baremetal:node:update:driver_info
• properties - baremetal:node:update:properties
• chassis_uuid - baremetal:node:update:chassis_uuid
• instance_uuid - baremetal:node:update:instance_uuid
• lessee - baremetal:node:update:lessee
• owner - baremetal:node:update:owner
• driver - baremetal:node:update:driver_interfaces
• *_interface - baremetal:node:update:driver_interfaces
• network_data - baremetal:node:update:network_data
• conductor_group - baremetal:node:update:conductor_group
• name - baremetal:node:update:name
• retired - baremetal:node:update:driver_info
• retired_reason - baremetal:node:update:retired

Warning

The chassis_uuid field is a write-once-only field. As such it is restricted to system scoped administrators.

More information is available on these fields in /configuration/policy.

Allocations

The allocations endpoint of the API is somewhat different than other other endpoints as it allows for the allocation of physical machines to an admin. In this context, there is not already an owner or project_id to leverage to control access for the creation process, any project member does have the inherent prilege of requesting an allocation. That being said, their allocation request will require physical nodes to be owned or leased to the project_id through the node fields owner or lessee.

Ability to override the owner is restricted to system scoped users by default and any new allocation being requested with a specific owner, if made in project scope, will have the project_id recorded as the owner of the allocation.

Ultimately, an operational behavior difference exists between the owner and lessee rights in terms of allocations exists. With the standard access rights, lessee users are able to create allocations if they own nodes which are not allocated or deployed, but they cannot reprovision nodes when using only a member role. This limitation is not the case for project-scoped users with the admin role.

Warning

The allocation endpoint's use is restricted to project scoped interactions until [oslo_policy]enforce_new_defaults has been set to True using the baremetal:allocation:create_pre_rbac policy rule. This is in order to prevent endpoint misuse. Afterwards all project scoped allocations will automatically populate an owner. System scoped request are not subjected to this restriction, and operators may change the default restriction via the baremetal:allocation:create_restricted policy.

Pratical differences

Most users, upon implementing the use of system scoped authentication should not notice a difference as long as their authentication token is properly scoped to system and with the appropriate role for their access level. For most users who used a baremetal project, or other custom project via a custom policy file, along with a custom role name such as baremetal_admin, this will require changing the user to be a system scoped user with admin privilges.

The most noticeable difference for API consumers is the HTTP 403 access code is now mainly a HTTP 404 access code. The access concept has changed from "Does the user user broadly has access to the API?" to "Does user have access to the node, and then do they have access to the specific resource?".

What is an owner or lessee?

An owner or lessee is the project which has been assigned baremetal resources. Generally these should be service projects as opposed to a project dedicated to a specific user. This will help prevent the need to involve a system scoped administrator from having to correct ownership records should a project need to be removed due to an individual's departure.

The underlying project_id is used to represent and associate the owner or lessee.

How do I assign an owner?

# baremetal node set --owner <project_id> <node>

Note

With the default access policy, an owner is able to change the assigned lessee of a node. However the lessee is unable to do the same.

How do I assign a lessee?

# baremetal node set --lessee <project_id> <node>

What is the difference between an owner and lessee?

This is largely covered in How Project Scoped Works although as noted it is largely in means of access. A lessee is far more restrictive and an owner may revoke access to lessee.

Access to the underlying baremetal node is not exclusive between the owner and lessee, and this use model expects that some level of communication takes place between the appropriate parties.