path: root/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 <https://docs.openstack.org/keystone/latest/admin/service-api-protection.html>`_
* `Ironic Scoped Role Based Access Control Specification <https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/17.0/secure-rbac.html>`_

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 <https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/12.1/ownership-field.html>`_
* `Allow Node owners to Administer <https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/14.0/node-owner-policy.html>`_
* `Allow Leasable Nodes <https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/15.0/node-lessee.html>`_

System Scoped
=============

System scoped authentication is intended for "administrative" activities 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 <https://docs.openstack.org/keystonemiddleware/latest/>`_
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``
privileges are identical to a system scoped ``admin``'s privileges.
Similarly ``baremetal_observer`` 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 delegative
to an ``owner`` and 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
prerogative, 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
:doc:`/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, whereas 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, owners are able to see insight into the
infrastructure, whereas 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 :doc:`/configuration/policy`.

Allocations
~~~~~~~~~~~

The ``allocations`` endpoint of the API is somewhat different than 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 privilege 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. 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.

Practical 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`` privileges.

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 broadly have 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?
-------------------------

.. code-block:: console

   # 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?
-------------------------

.. code-block:: console

   # 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.