[ceph-users] radosgw, Keystone integration, and the S3 API

Florian Haas florian at citynetwork.eu
Thu Nov 22 05:50:27 PST 2018


On 19/11/2018 16:23, Florian Haas wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I've recently started a documentation patch to better explain Swift
> compatibility and OpenStack integration for radosgw; a WIP PR is at
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/25056/. I have, however, run into an
> issue that I would really *like* to document, except I don't know
> whether what I'm seeing is how things are supposed to work. :)
> 
> This is about multi-tenancy in radosgw, in combination with S3
> authentication via Keystone (and EC2-compatible credentials generated
> from OpenStack, as explained in my doc patch). Now, when I enable
> rgw_s3_use_keystone_auth and rgw_keystone_implicit_tenants, then, if I
> create an S3 bucket in radosgw for the first time, naming that bucket
> "foo", the following things happen:
> 
> * I see a user that has been created, and that I can query with
>   "radosgw-admin user info", that is named
>   ff569d377ecb4f77875fa1b3f89eb16f$ff569d377ecb4f77875fa1b3f89eb16f
>   (that is, the Keystone tenant/project UUID twice[1], separated by a $
>   character). Its display_name is the name of my tenant.
> 
> * With "radosgw-admin bucket list
> --uid='ff569d377ecb4f77875fa1b3f89eb16f$ff569d377ecb4f77875fa1b3f89eb16f'",
>   I see a bucket that has been created, and that has been named "foo".
> 
> So far, all is well. If I do this, then I can see an bucket named
> "foo" if I use an S3 client, and I can see a container named "foo",
> with identical content, if I use the Swift API.
> 
> Now, if I enable rgw_swift_account_in_url, and update my Keystone
> object store endpoint to include AUTH_%(tenant_id)s, then using the
> Swift API I can also use public ACLs and temp URLs.
> 
> However, I am stumped trying to to understand how exactly this is meant
> to work with the S3 API.
> 
> So I have two questions:
> 
> (1) What do I have to do to get publicly-readable buckets to work in
>     the Keystone-authenticated scenario? Moreover, what is the correct
>     path to use, for a non-S3 client like curl or a browser, to access
>     an object? It seems that using
>     http://host:port/ff569d377ecb4f77875fa1b3f89eb16f:foo/bar works
>     for S3 objects with a public ACL set, but if I try to use the same
>     approach with a signed object, I get a 403 with
>     SignatureDoesNotMatch. It seems like what I have to use for a
>     signed object is, instead,
> 
> http://host:port/foo/bar?AWSAccessKeyId=something&Expires=something&Signature=something.
>     However, if I do *ask* for a signed object that includes the
>     tenant name, as in "s3cmd signurl
>     s3://5ed51981f4a8468292bf2c578806ebf:foo/bar +120", then I *can*
>     use the same URL format as for public ACL objects. Is this the
>     intended behavior? If so, does that mean that an application
>     using the S3 API, and access/secret keys from OpenStack-backed
>     EC2, should configure always itself to use the "<tenant_id>:"
>     prefix to precede the bucket name?
> 
> (2) Do I understand the documentation
>     (http://docs.ceph.com/docs/mimic/radosgw/multitenancy/#s3)
>     correctly in that whenever one uses multitenancy of any kind in
>     radosgw, S3 bucket hostnames can't ever be used? Thus, is it correct
>     to say that if a radosgw instance is meant to *only* ever
>     authenticate its users against Keystone, where there is always a
>     radosgw tenant that is being created, then it's pointless to set
>     rgw_dns_name?
> 
> 
> If anyone could shed a light on the above, I can write up the answer and
> amend the doc patch. Thanks!

OK I *think* I've got this fairly well figured out and I've dropped the
WIP prefix from my doc patch:

https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/25056

As this is a documentation patch, you really don't need to be a radosgw
developer to review it — if there's anything you find unclear or plain
wrong by your experience, please do let me know; I'd much appreciate that.

> [1] This would be an additional question: why is the project UUID in
> there *twice*? Surely there's a good cause for that, but it presently
> escapes me. http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/multitenancy/ says
> "TBD – don’t forget to explain the function of rgw keystone implicit
> tenants = true" here, which isn't very helpful. :)

Although I've covered that TBD in my patch, the question of why the
tenant name is duplicated in the radosgw user name is something I still
haven't been able to suss out. So if anyone can enlighten me there,
that'd be excellent too. :)

Cheers,
Florian


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/attachments/20181122/785be9ca/attachment.sig>


More information about the ceph-users mailing list