DAOS-16038 pool: Enable pool list for clients #14575

mjmac · 2024-06-13T23:34:43Z

Revive parts of the old client mgmt API to allow
libdaos clients to list pools in the system, but
only allow a given client to see the pools that
it could connect to.

github-actions · 2024-06-13T23:35:03Z

Bug-tracker data:
Errors are component not formatted correctly,Ticket number prefix incorrect,PR title is malformatted. See https://daosio.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DC/pages/11133911069/Commit+Comments,Unable to load ticket data
https://daosio.atlassian.net/browse/

src/engine/drpc_client.c

src/mgmt/srv.c

src/pool/rpc.c

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-13T23:39:02Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/1/execution/node/204/log

Revive parts of the old client mgmt API to allow libdaos clients to list pools in the system, but only allow a given client to see the pools that it could connect to. Required-githooks: true Change-Id: I2b3c391ddf042b23811be8f3390ec290e92e4290 Signed-off-by: Michael MacDonald <[email protected]>

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-15T15:53:02Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/2/execution/node/204/log

mjmac · 2024-06-15T16:20:29Z

Tagging early reviewers to validate the approach before I proceed:

@mchaarawi: I un-deprecated the list pools API for clients, is this OK, from a compatibility standpoint?
@kccain, @liw: Please take a look at how I implemented dc_mgmt_pool_list ... I know that the new MS isn't a proper rsvc, but it seems reasonable to me that we could make it behave like one so that we can leverage the rsvc_client functionality.
@kccain, @liw (, others? @johannlombardi?): Please take a look at how I added the new pool access check RPC. If this looks reasonable, I can refactor the connect handler to use the shared helper.
@kjacque (and @dpquigl if available for reviews): Please take a look at the credential management. I followed established patterns, so hopefully what I've done in this patch makes sense.

There is still some work to be done to enable an optional pool query for each listed pool, for parity with the dmg command. I also plan to add ftest coverage for the new daos pool list command. I'll work on that once I get a greenlight on the overall approach.

For the moment, I've got this work based on the google/2.4 branch, but I will plan to get it rebased on master for 2.8, and possibly backported for 2.6.1 if there are no compatibility issues.

mjmac · 2024-06-15T16:31:18Z

Some example output, showing that dmg can list all pools, since it is an admin command, but the daos tool can only list pools that would allow the user to connect:

(rocky-8)mjmac@mjmac-daos-dev00:~/projects/daos$ dmg pool list
Pool      Size   State Used Imbalance Disabled
----      ----   ----- ---- --------- --------
offlimits 3.0 GB Ready 41%  0%        0/24
tank      40 GB  Ready 7%   0%        0/24

(rocky-8)mjmac@mjmac-daos-dev00:~/projects/daos$ dmg pool get-acl offlimits
# Owner: mjmac@
# Owner Group: primarygroup@
# Entries:
#   None
(rocky-8)mjmac@mjmac-daos-dev00:~/projects/daos$ daos pool list
Pool Size State Used Imbalance Disabled
---- ---- ----- ---- --------- --------
tank 0 B  Ready 0%   0%        0/0

The pool access filtering is done on the engine side, as the client environment is untrusted, and clients without connection access to a pool shouldn't know anything about its details.

kjacque

I looked closely at the credential usage and skimmed the rest. This approach looks good to me.

liw · 2024-06-19T04:05:50Z

Some example output, showing that dmg can list all pools, since it is an admin command, but the daos tool can only list pools that would allow the user to connect:

Since both daos and libdaos depends on daos_agent, have we considered letting the latter forward pool list requests to the MS?

mjmac · 2024-06-19T17:32:56Z

Some example output, showing that dmg can list all pools, since it is an admin command, but the daos tool can only list pools that would allow the user to connect:

Since both daos and libdaos depends on daos_agent, have we considered letting the latter forward pool list requests to the MS?

@liw: Yep, I did consider that approach, but please note that for each pool in the system, we need to perform an ACL check using the client's credential. If the client could connect to that pool, it's included in the list returned to the client.

The logic for performing this access check is implemented in the engine, so if we used the agent as a relay, we would have to go (repeating the MS/PS calls for each pool via dRPC from daos_server):
client <-dRPC-> agent <-gRPC-> MS [<-dRPC-> engine <-CaRT-> PS]

The approach proposed in this patch looks like this (repeating the PS call for each pool from the MS rank):
client <-CaRT-> engine (MS rank, 1 dRPC upcall to get pool list) [<-CaRT-> PS]

Given that the majority of the work that needs to be done for this functionality happens in the engine, it seemed much more efficient to keep most of the logic at this level. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

johannlombardi

Approach looks go to me.

liw · 2024-06-23T23:59:41Z

@liw: Yep, I did consider that approach, but please note that for each pool in the system, we need to perform an ACL check using the client's credential. If the client could connect to that pool, it's included in the list returned to the client.

The logic for performing this access check is implemented in the engine, so if we used the agent as a relay, we would have to go (repeating the MS/PS calls for each pool via dRPC from daos_server): client <-dRPC-> agent <-gRPC-> MS [<-dRPC-> engine <-CaRT-> PS]

The approach proposed in this patch looks like this (repeating the PS call for each pool from the MS rank): client <-CaRT-> engine (MS rank, 1 dRPC upcall to get pool list) [<-CaRT-> PS]

Given that the majority of the work that needs to be done for this functionality happens in the engine, it seemed much more efficient to keep most of the logic at this level. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

Right, the "constraint of the design"... Is that an external requirement for the solution or one that is required by the current approach? (One reason I can think of for that to be an external requirement is: We might not want a user to see the labels of the pools that he cannot access.) Just want to make sure this requirement is a must have.

Suppose we must filter out pools a user cannot access, would it be nice if we could consider this type of listing operation to be an extension of dmg pool list -v? "The MS lists pools and contact each one of the PSs" seems to be a common pattern potentially shared for future MS features. The pool access properties could be returned to the MS (similar to those for the -v in dmg pool list -v) or the agent to check the client credential, while the client credential is originated from the agent anyway. What do you think?

kjacque · 2024-06-24T16:35:21Z

Suppose we must filter out pools a user cannot access, would it be nice if we could consider this type of listing operation to be an extension of dmg pool list -v? "The MS lists pools and contact each one of the PSs" seems to be a common pattern potentially shared for future MS features. The pool access properties could be returned to the MS (similar to those for the -v in dmg pool list -v) or the agent to check the client credential, while the client credential is originated from the agent anyway. What do you think?

One thing to keep in mind is that all ACL processing code is currently on the server side. We could change this and make it common code (which I would recommend over trying to re-implement this logic in Go). In that case we may need to expose it via libdaos to make it accessible to the agent.

mjmac · 2024-06-24T17:27:48Z

We might not want a user to see the labels of the pools that he cannot access.) Just want to make sure this requirement is a must have.

This is absolutely a must-have requirement. Users must not have any visibility into or knowledge about pools to which they do not have access. The pool label may reveal sensitive information about the contents or use of the pool, for example. As we cannot trust anything on the client side of the client API, we can't do the filtering in libdaos.

In order to accomplish this filtering in the control plane only, I think the following would need to happen:

As Kris points out, we would need to make the ACL handling code available outside of the ds_sec library and add Go bindings for it
We'd need to add a pool list handler to the agent, which would query the MS for the list of pools, and then query each pool for its ACLs (via get-prop?)
After obtaining the ACL for a pool, the agent would use the ACL handling code to determine whether or not the client could connect to that pool, and filter out those to which the client does not have access

Pros:
* Minimizes changes to daos_engine code (and less C for me to mangle)
* Keeps most of the work being done closer to the client
* Some opportunities for caching in the agent? Could cache the list of pools and their ACLs for short periods of time to handle "bursty" client behavior

Cons:
* Requires significant refactoring to make security-sensitive ACL handling code available to the agent
* Continues to expand the agent's scope of responsibility
* Uses management network (agent <-> MS <-> PS) instead of storage fabric, for client-initiated traffic
* Potential races due to agents having stale pool data?

mjmac · 2024-06-24T18:37:05Z

Regardless of exactly how we implement the backend side of the pool list capability, I think the front-end work can proceed. Before I go further down that road, however, I would appreciate some feedback from @mchaarawi on the API changes ... I'd prefer to avoid finding out that it's a no-go or that there was a better way to do it after I've sunk more time into it.

mchaarawi

no concerns; but just needs some required small updates for the task stuff

mchaarawi · 2024-06-24T18:54:48Z

src/client/api/init.c

-	{dc_deprecated, 0},
+	{dc_mgmt_pool_list, sizeof(daos_mgmt_pool_list_t)},


do you really need to add a user task API for this function though? I'm not really sure this is required and you can probably not worry about changes in the task stuff.
otherwise changes here are not enough and you would need to add a few more things.

I'm not sure. I was following the pattern set by @kccain when he added the original implementation of pool list. I haven't really dug into it beyond that.

Given that I don't feel strongly either way, I'm happy to follow your guidance on the best way to implement this feature.

@mchaarawi: Ping... Please advise on the recommended approach here. I'm getting ready to rebase all of this work on master, and would prefer to push that PR in as close to a final state as possible rather than iterating on it.

Also, I don't see much in the way of client API tests. Not particularly keen to invent all of that myself, but happy to work with someone who knows more about this side of things. I am planning to add ftests for this feature -- would that be acceptable in lieu of new client API unit tests?

sorry i didn't know you were still looking for my review on this. as i mentioned, you should just avoid adding this change with the task api, otherwise you still need to update other structures to support that.
for client api tests, im not sure what you mean. i believe you should add some tests there:
https://github.com/daos-stack/daos/blob/master/src/tests/suite/daos_mgmt.c
but if you want to use ftest, that is fine too.

sorry i didn't know you were still looking for my review on this. as i mentioned, you should just avoid adding this change with the task api, otherwise you still need to update other structures to support that.

OK, is the task API deprecated? I have a superficial understanding of the client API's workings, so as I said I was just following the existing patterns. If I didn't use the task API, would I basically just rework daos_mgmt_list_pools() to just call dc_mgmt_pool_list() directly? Is there any downside to doing it this way?

for client api tests, im not sure what you mean. i believe you should add some tests there: https://github.com/daos-stack/daos/blob/master/src/tests/suite/daos_mgmt.c but if you want to use ftest, that is fine too.

Ah, OK. I was thinking of unit tests under src/client/api/tests. I'll just rework the suite test to use the re-added client API instead of the dmg helper.

OK, is the task API deprecated? I have a superficial understanding of the client API's workings, so as I said I was just following the existing patterns.

no the task api is not deprecated. but to add the task API entry for this function, you still need to update:
https://github.com/daos-stack/daos/blob/mjmac/DAOS-15982/src/include/daos/task.h
to be safe.
otherwise you can just remove the task api entry for it, and do as you suggested:

If I didn't use the task API, would I basically just rework daos_mgmt_list_pools() to just call dc_mgmt_pool_list() directly? Is there any downside to doing it this way?

either way is fine for me.

mchaarawi · 2024-06-24T19:01:09Z

src/include/daos_mgmt.h

+	/** Pool label */
+	d_string_t                       mgpi_label;


I was going to say that this is an API breaking change. but it sounds like we only used this in dmg functions, so probably no user was using this before.

mchaarawi · 2024-06-24T19:03:18Z

src/include/daos_mgmt.h

+int
+daos_mgmt_list_pools(const char *group, daos_size_t *npools, daos_mgmt_pool_info_t *pools,
+		     daos_event_t *ev);
+


there is no API description. so should add that.
I assume one can query the size with NULL pools buf, or provide an estimated buffer of certain size and the call return the actual size in npools?
this also needs some C tests added.

there is no API description. so should add that.

Done.

I assume one can query the size with NULL pools buf, or provide an estimated buffer of certain size and the call return the actual size in npools?

Correct. This is following the pattern established by other pool client APIs.

this also needs some C tests added.

Ack. Will add them.

Signed-off-by: Michael MacDonald <[email protected]>

Change-Id: Ia59d1464870ee55f65a4fc3a37fe826ce1630669

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-25T22:35:46Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/3/execution/node/204/log

mjmac · 2024-06-26T13:08:26Z

After some discussion with @liw and @kccain (thanks!), I'm going to explore the idea of doing the pool access check in the list handler instead of making a call with the new "can this client access the pool" RPC. It would still require N RPCs to get the pool ACLs, but wouldn't require a new server<->server RPC that is probably only useful for this specific scenario.

One potential downside to this approach is that it would lose the ability to delegate the connectability decision to the pool service. In scenarios where a pool is queryable for its properties but would not allow clients to connect (or, indeed, wouldn't allow a specific client to connect even if the ACL allows it), the client would receive that pool in the list of connectable pools. This may be fine as an edge case.

Signed-off-by: Michael MacDonald <[email protected]>

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-26T21:56:58Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/4/execution/node/204/log

Signed-off-by: Michael MacDonald <[email protected]>

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-27T20:27:40Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/10/execution/node/176/log

mjmac · 2024-06-27T20:41:00Z

One potential downside to this approach is that it would lose the ability to delegate the connectability decision to the pool service. In scenarios where a pool is queryable for its properties but would not allow clients to connect (or, indeed, wouldn't allow a specific client to connect even if the ACL allows it), the client would receive that pool in the list of connectable pools. This may be fine as an edge case.

Can you provide an example of where we could hit a case like this?

Not offhand... I included that thought in case it seemed relevant to someone else. I think it's an acceptable edge case. The user-visible result of this would be a pool that they can't actually access, which would be annoying but not the end of the world, IMO.

I thought we would need to initiate a pool connect in order to perform the pool query at all.

Not when the pool query is being done from a server. There are server<->server RPCs that don't require a pool handle.

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-27T21:33:52Z

Test stage Functional on EL 8.8 completed with status UNSTABLE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com/job/daos-stack/job/daos//view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/10/testReport/

Quick-functional: true Test-tag: ListClientPoolsTest Signed-off-by: Michael MacDonald <[email protected]>

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-28T01:20:21Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/11/execution/node/204/log

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-28T02:26:06Z

Test stage Functional on EL 8.8 completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/11/execution/node/1270/log

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-28T13:38:31Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/12/execution/node/204/log

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-28T14:46:36Z

Test stage Functional on EL 8.8 completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/12/execution/node/1270/log

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-28T17:34:00Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/13/execution/node/204/log

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-28T18:38:24Z

Test stage Functional on EL 8.8 completed with status UNSTABLE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com/job/daos-stack/job/daos//view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/13/testReport/

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-28T21:17:02Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/14/execution/node/204/log

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-28T22:20:32Z

Test stage Functional on EL 8.8 completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/14/execution/node/1270/log

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-28T23:26:14Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/15/execution/node/147/log

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-29T01:43:57Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/16/execution/node/147/log

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-29T01:49:19Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/17/execution/node/205/log

Skip-NLT: true Skip-unit-test: true Quick-functional: true Test-tag: test_list_pools Required-githooks: true Change-Id: I829dd6e5d26ea8ff3f5c9ff0da758dcc92e90774 Signed-off-by: Michael MacDonald <[email protected]>

daosbuild1 · 2024-06-29T04:39:31Z

Test stage checkpatch completed with status FAILURE. https://build.hpdd.intel.com//job/daos-stack/job/daos/view/change-requests/job/PR-14575/18/execution/node/147/log

mjmac · 2024-06-29T14:04:45Z

Alright, I think I've addressed all of the preliminary feedback and I've finished iterating on tests. Moving over to #14672 for the master PR.

mjmac changed the title ~~mjmac/DAOS 15982~~ DAOS 15982 pool: Allow libdaos clients to list pools with access Jun 13, 2024

daosbuild1 requested changes Jun 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/engine/drpc_client.c Show resolved Hide resolved

src/mgmt/srv.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/mgmt/srv.c Show resolved Hide resolved

src/pool/rpc.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mjmac force-pushed the mjmac/DAOS-15982 branch from 43c73cc to e7db73a Compare June 15, 2024 15:49

mjmac changed the title ~~DAOS 15982 pool: Allow libdaos clients to list pools with access~~ DAOS-15982 pool: Enable pool list for clients Jun 15, 2024

mjmac changed the title ~~DAOS-15982 pool: Enable pool list for clients~~ DAOS-16038 pool: Enable pool list for clients Jun 15, 2024

kjacque self-requested a review June 18, 2024 00:46

kjacque reviewed Jun 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

johannlombardi reviewed Jun 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

mchaarawi reviewed Jun 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

mjmac added 3 commits June 25, 2024 22:20

Address review feedback, add pool query to list

257c1b7

Signed-off-by: Michael MacDonald <[email protected]>

Merge branch 'google/2.4' into mjmac/DAOS-15982

8efb7aa

Change-Id: Ia59d1464870ee55f65a4fc3a37fe826ce1630669

use pool UUID instead of label in query

26f2b99

mjmac added 2 commits June 26, 2024 18:06

revert pool svc RPC additions

d720024

Perform pool ACL evaluation in pool list handler

b4a14de

Signed-off-by: Michael MacDonald <[email protected]>

handle fetch retries on pool count changes

054c3cd

Signed-off-by: Michael MacDonald <[email protected]>

mjmac force-pushed the mjmac/DAOS-15982 branch from e092306 to 417ddec Compare June 27, 2024 20:25

mjmac added 2 commits June 28, 2024 01:09

update task.h

3943270

update mgmt suite test to use client pool list

5300e81

Quick-functional: true Test-tag: ListClientPoolsTest Signed-off-by: Michael MacDonald <[email protected]>

mjmac force-pushed the mjmac/DAOS-15982 branch from 417ddec to 8b4158a Compare June 28, 2024 01:15

mjmac force-pushed the mjmac/DAOS-15982 branch from 8b4158a to 3a8e76d Compare June 28, 2024 13:34

mjmac force-pushed the mjmac/DAOS-15982 branch from 3a8e76d to d5a67e8 Compare June 28, 2024 17:30

mjmac force-pushed the mjmac/DAOS-15982 branch from d5a67e8 to 528280c Compare June 28, 2024 21:12

adjust daos list pools JSON output to match dmg

d147fb3

mjmac force-pushed the mjmac/DAOS-15982 branch from 528280c to 63aa2fe Compare June 28, 2024 23:24

mjmac force-pushed the mjmac/DAOS-15982 branch from 63aa2fe to 9900c7d Compare June 29, 2024 01:42

mjmac force-pushed the mjmac/DAOS-15982 branch from 9900c7d to 9c0412f Compare June 29, 2024 01:45

ftest for daos pool list

ad2d948

Skip-NLT: true Skip-unit-test: true Quick-functional: true Test-tag: test_list_pools Required-githooks: true Change-Id: I829dd6e5d26ea8ff3f5c9ff0da758dcc92e90774 Signed-off-by: Michael MacDonald <[email protected]>

mjmac force-pushed the mjmac/DAOS-15982 branch from 9c0412f to ad2d948 Compare June 29, 2024 04:37

mjmac closed this Jun 29, 2024

		{dc_deprecated, 0},
		{dc_mgmt_pool_list, sizeof(daos_mgmt_pool_list_t)},

DAOS-16038 pool: Enable pool list for clients #14575

DAOS-16038 pool: Enable pool list for clients #14575

Conversation

mjmac commented Jun 13, 2024 • edited Loading

github-actions bot commented Jun 13, 2024 • edited Loading

daosbuild1 commented Jun 13, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 15, 2024

mjmac commented Jun 15, 2024

mjmac commented Jun 15, 2024

kjacque left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

liw commented Jun 19, 2024

mjmac commented Jun 19, 2024 • edited Loading

johannlombardi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

liw commented Jun 23, 2024

kjacque commented Jun 24, 2024

mjmac commented Jun 24, 2024 • edited Loading

mjmac commented Jun 24, 2024

mchaarawi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mjmac Jun 25, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

daosbuild1 commented Jun 25, 2024

mjmac commented Jun 26, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 26, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 27, 2024

mjmac commented Jun 27, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 27, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 28, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 28, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 28, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 28, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 28, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 28, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 28, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 28, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 28, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 29, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 29, 2024

daosbuild1 commented Jun 29, 2024

mjmac commented Jun 29, 2024

mjmac commented Jun 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jun 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mjmac commented Jun 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mjmac commented Jun 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mjmac Jun 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading