[Freeipa-devel] [RFE] Permissions V2

[Simo Sorce]

On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:46 +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 12/06/2013 03:28 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 14:14 +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> >> On 12/02/2013 02:48 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> >>> On 12/02/2013 02:29 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >
> >>>> It would be very nice if you can add the resulting LDAP objects in the
> >>>> example, that will allow me to reason on the correctness of the
> >>>> translation.
> >>>
> >>> OK, I'll work on that.
> >>
> >> I've added the resulting LDAP objects to the tests here:
> >> http://www.freeipa.org/index.php?title=V3/Permissions_V2/tests
> >
> > Thank you Petr,
> > I was looking at them and I see we often use target=ldap://<dn> type for
> > selecting which objects this apply to.
> >
> > This was sort of necessary when the permissions were all in the base and
> > we wanted to limit to specific entries in subtrees.
> >
> > However I was wondering if we shouldn't transition/allow to user
> > targetfilter or targetattrfilter (this would be needed to have
> > add/delete permissions).
> >
> > For example, instead of:
> >    (target = "ldap:///uid=*,cn=users,cn=accounts,$SUFFIX")
> > We could have:
> >    (targetfilter = "(objectclass=ipaUser)")
> >
> > It also occurs to me we could do very neat things like allowing manager
> > access with (targetfilter = "(managedby=<dn>)"), and similar.
> >
> > In general using targetfilter and targetattrfilter is more flexible and
> > allow for applying different permission depending exacly on the object
> > type or even specific sets of objects of a common type. Something the
> > simple target filter cannot do.
> >
> > What do you think ?
> 
> +1
> 
> I don't think this should block the framework patches that are on list 
> now, though. I'll file a RFE for tuning how the default and "type" 
> permissions look. Would that be fine?

Do we need a new attribute, or do you think we can do this without
changing the schema ?

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York