-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 132
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support providing root client ID via env. variables when bootstrapping #422
Conversation
I recall that @collado-mike and I discussed this as one option when bootstrapping, but I can't remember why we went with the current approach. For my part, I would ideally like to see as little a difference in the UX of the different metastores as possible. |
Do you mean supporting the same overrides under the |
Taking a step back, and thinking about real-life scenarios: how is an operator supposed to get hold of the root credentials, after installing and bootstrapping Polaris? I read the Polaris documentation about production setups, it does cover bootstrapping, but it doesn't cover this detail in particular, so I guess the exact procedure depends on the metastore being used? Wouldn't it be possible to standardize that? I'm also raising this point because while working on the Quarkus port, I realized that it is not possible to create a true integration test currently, that is, a test that spawns Polaris as a black box, and only interacts with it through its external APIs. This is because once started and bootstrapped, and regardless of the metastore used, the test is unable to infer which credentials to use to communicate with Polaris. All in all, I wonder if we aren't missing a simple and standard way to pass the root credentials to the boostrapping process, even in production setups – or alternatively, a way to retrieve those, that would also be standardized across metastores. |
My personal take on that is that the |
A few thoughts here.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess we can integrate this in the TestEnvironmentExtension
recently added (waiting Quarkus 😄 ).
@eric-maynard : thanks for sharing your views on this matter. Re: security of bootstrapping, I did not mean printing credentials to STDOUT. The "output" can be a file at a user-specified location. I think this is quite similar to downloading ssh certificates for a VM from a cloud vendor. I wonder what options end users currently have for bootstrapping, though 🤔 How will a user be able to discover a generated root credential? (Apologies if I missed this in somewhere in docs). |
I agree that we need to proceed carefully since it's a security-related issue. I'd note, fwiw, that Keycloak allows to bootstrap the root credentials via environment variables. I don't think we can suspect Keycloak of taking security lightly :-) In another place of Keycloak docs, we can learn more about how the environment variables are processed:
Couldn't we do something similar to that? |
If we go down this route, maybe check that the file permissions are as restrictive as possible. |
So if you're just doing testing like this PR would address, you can just use passwordless auth. You normally don't need the root credentials. However if you're asking more generally how to retrieve the root credentials it is metastore-dependent. Ideally your metastore is set up with your auth provider and allows you to do something nice like set/retrieve the credentials using SSO. Or perhaps they are exposed through some API which is already secured. But in the simplest case where you're just using a postgres metastore, you can retrieve them through something like:
|
I could use So this PR proposes to make this an option for the user to define the root credential if the user so chooses. I think it could be convenient for other people too. As for the general bootstrapping case, the above discussion is interesting, but maybe we can continue that on the dev list or separate PR. As for this PR, do you think the idea of allowing user overrides for root credentials is reasonable given that it only applies to the "test" authentication implementation, which is already not "secret" given the fixed root token? |
I see. If you want to test the auth flow and you can't call Could you call Barring that, I am open to allowing the user to set the credentials using an env variable for the in-memory metastore. |
It is a fairly common and accepted practice to generate random secrets during bootstrapping - e.g., terraform has built-in support for this - https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/random/latest/docs/resources/password . Allowing Terraform to randomly generate a password, bootstrap Polaris, and stick the secrets in Vault or k8s secrets is a very secure pattern and something I think we ought to support. |
And I'd note that that is the usual pattern that most Helm charts adopt when bootstrapping things like databases. |
SGTM, based on the above discussion, I think I'll extend the env. variables support to the normal |
aff2823
to
3d5640f
Compare
public synchronized Map<String, PolarisMetaStoreManager.PrincipalSecretsResult> bootstrapRealms( | ||
List<String> realms) { | ||
public Map<String, PolarisMetaStoreManager.PrincipalSecretsResult> bootstrapRealms( | ||
List<String> realms, Function<String, PrincipalSecretsGenerator> rootSecretsPerRealm) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like the PrincipalSecretsGenerator
. Is it necessary to have it per realm, though? Can it take the realm as a method argument instead
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd probably have to add realm to PolarisCallContext
.
From my POV, I wanted to avoid exposing realm to lower-level code for better abstraction.
In practice only one realm is normally bootstrapped at a time, so we can probably drop the realm parameter completely and use env. vars. like POLARIS_BOOTSTRAP_ROOT_CLIENT_ID
. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've reworked the generator code a bit. Hope it's clearer wrt realms now.
public @NotNull BaseResult bootstrapPolarisService( | ||
@NotNull PolarisCallContext callCtx, PrincipalSecretsGenerator rootSecretsGenerator) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rather than changing the public interface, can we make the PrincipalSecretsGenerator
a constructor param? I don't think callers need to know anything about this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Different generators are used during bootstrapping and (REST) API-driven principal creation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
reworked to avoid modifying public interfaces.
public @NotNull PolarisPrincipalSecrets generateNewPrincipalSecrets( | ||
@NotNull PolarisCallContext callCtx, @NotNull String principalName, long principalId) { | ||
@NotNull PolarisCallContext callCtx, | ||
@NotNull String principalName, | ||
long principalId, | ||
PrincipalSecretsGenerator generator) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same here - rather than passing in the generator as an argument, I think it should be a constructor argument
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
reworked to avoid modifying public interfaces.
2a6321f
to
24f2e54
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Change looks good to me - some javadocs would be helpful, though
import org.jetbrains.annotations.NotNull; | ||
|
||
@FunctionalInterface | ||
public interface PrincipalSecretsGenerator { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Short javadoc here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
added
static Realms bootstrap() { | ||
return bootstrap(System.getenv()::get); | ||
} | ||
|
||
static Realms bootstrap(Function<String, String> config) { | ||
return new Realms(config); | ||
} | ||
|
||
class Realms { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some javadocs here would be useful
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
added
* from services that actually manage principal objects (create, remove, rotate secrets, etc.) | ||
* | ||
* <p>The implementation statically available from {@link #bootstrap()} allows one-time client ID | ||
* and secret overrides via environment variables, which can be useful for bootstrapping new realms. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we call out exactly what environment variables are used, here and preferably in the docs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
added
@@ -58,11 +60,17 @@ public abstract class LocalPolarisMetaStoreManagerFactory<StoreType> | |||
private static final Logger LOGGER = | |||
LoggerFactory.getLogger(LocalPolarisMetaStoreManagerFactory.class); | |||
|
|||
private final PrincipalSecretsGenerator.Realms secretsGenerator = bootstrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks a bit odd, why is a secretsGenerator
of the type Realms
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see, it's like a secretsGeneratorGenerator
. I wonder if we can just get rid of the thin Realms
type and push this into PrincipalSecretsGenerator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe this will require PolarisMetaStoreSession
implementations to have "realm" as a field. Would that be ok from your POV?.. Currently sessions are not strongly bound to realms. Realm-specific behaviour is relevant only to the bootstrap
command and factories.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see, the places calling produceSecrets
don't necessarily have access to the realm
. Maybe we can just move this into the constructor of PrincipalSecretsGenerator
itself
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I reworked the impl. a bit... hopefully the bootstrapping logic is clearer now.
@eric-maynard: Would you still prefer to have a non-lambda class for PrincipalSecretsGenerator
implementations?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's fine as it is now, maybe in the future if there are more implementations we can refine it further. Thanks for iterating on this!
static PrincipalSecretsGenerator bootstrap(String realmName) { | ||
return bootstrap(realmName, System.getenv()::get); | ||
} | ||
|
||
static PrincipalSecretsGenerator bootstrap(String realmName, Function<String, String> config) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks a lot better, thanks!
I believe that after #438 but without this PR it is not really possible to bootstrap Polaris with EclipseLink... I do not see a way to discover the auto-generated root secret 🤔 ;) |
+1 @dimas-b, I think this is a partial fix for that problem. However we probably shouldn't allow bootstrapping without specifying credentials if the intent is that users can retrieve secrets from the metastore but we no longer put them in the metastore. I still think we can merge this as-is and follow up with that potential restriction. Other possibilities for resolving this issue:
Any preferences @dimas-b / @collado-mike ? |
My preference would be to keep the env. variables for root password bootstrapping, plus add CLI options to the By the way, I'm rebasing this PR to resolve conflicts... will probably squash too. |
d88d74a
to
5fdf9b8
Compare
I like this idea, and I can do this -- but do you think we should fail the bootstrap if
In this case the metastore is pretty much bricked, so I think we should not proceed with the bootstrap. Edit: See my sketch of this idea here, which would be rebased on this PR. |
SGTM 👍 |
@collado-mike : are you ok to merge? |
@@ -113,7 +115,8 @@ public PolarisEclipseLinkMetaStoreSessionImpl( | |||
@NotNull PolarisStorageIntegrationProvider storageIntegrationProvider, | |||
@NotNull RealmContext realmContext, | |||
@Nullable String confFile, | |||
@Nullable String persistenceUnitName) { | |||
@Nullable String persistenceUnitName, | |||
PrincipalSecretsGenerator secretsGenerator) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@NotNull
annotation, since we don't do any null checking below
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
added
5fdf9b8
to
25e0cb7
Compare
Introduce a `PrincipalSecretsGenerator` interface to isolate secrets generation from principal management code. Update meta store factories to allow the user to define the root client ID and secret via environment variables during bootstrapping.
25e0cb7
to
778706e
Compare
Allow the root client ID and secrets to be provided via environment variables when bootstrapping.
For "in memory" use cases, this mean the main Polaris server will read user-provided root secrets from the env., if propvided.
For "persistent" use cases, the
bootstrap
command will read user-provided root secrets from the env., if propvided.The env. variables are:
POLARIS_BOOTSTRAP_<REALM>_ROOT_CLIENT_ID
POLARIS_BOOTSTRAP_<REALM>_ROOT_CLIENT_SECRET
If these variables are not provided, random values are generated as before.
How Has This Been Tested?
Manual smoke tests.