Re: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Use the new security-authorization module per default in XWiki 5.0

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>

> > On Mar 15, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Ludovic Dubost &lt;ludovic(a)xwiki.com&gt; > wrote: >> >>> 2013/3/14 Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; >>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Jerome Velociter < > jerome(a)velociter.fr >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Denis, >>>>> >>>>> Le 14/03/13 22:59, Denis Gervalle a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi devs, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have a new (component based) authorization module since a while >>> now, >>>>>>> and I think 5.0 is the perfect time to introduce it as the default >>>> right >>>>>>> service. First, I simply propose to change the default in

>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > xwiki.authentication.**rightsclass=org.xwiki.**security.authorization.** >>>>>>> internal.**XWikiCachingRightService >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Later, I propose that we deprecate that bridge and that we

>>>>>>> friendly (xwiki oriented) interface over the more generic >>>>>>> org.xwiki.security.**authorization.**AuthorizationManager. But

>>>>>>> this for a >>>>>>> later proposal.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So this vote is about changing the default in xwiki.cfg before > 5.0M2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> pros: >>>>>>> - improved performance, since the new service is using caching >>>>>>> techniques >>>>>>> and a single page load required lots of calls to it. >>>>>>> - ability for extension to add new rights >>>>>>> - define right declaratively >>>>>>> - separate method for checking and verifying right (throws opposed >>> to >>>>>>> boolean return) >>>>>>> - fix some long waiting bugs like XWIKI-5174, XWIKI-6987, as well >>> as >>>>>>> some unstated ones >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also XWIKI-4550 >>>>>> >>>>>> - possibility to easily solve issues like XWIKI-4491 >>>>>>> - no more admin right per default >>>>>>> - being in good position to improve it and release dependencies to >>>>>>> oldcore for security matters. >>>>>>> - possibility for third party to adapt the right settler to their >>>>>>> special >>>>>>> needs (right decision is plugable) >>>>>>> - a consistant right evaluation with very few exception that could >>> be >>>>>>> explained and documented >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cons: >>>>>>> - no more admin right per default, but since we have DW, the >>> initial >>>>>>> setup is no more a problem, and advanced users may use superadmin. >>>>>>> - groups are only checked from the user wiki, not from the

>>>>>>> entity wiki. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> This sound like a big regression. >>>>> >>>>> Can you explicit more ? Does this mean that adding a global (main > wiki) >>>>> user in a local group has no effect ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have got it right. This could be improved, and help is welcome. > What >>>> happen is that the user groups are evaluated independently to the >>> targeted >>>> entity, and therefore only in the user wiki. >>>> >>>> I admit this is a regression, but I have not cross lots of use case > like >>>> those. The simple display in admin of Global user in local Group is > even >>>> broken (double xwiki:xwiki:...) so this does not seems to me a common >>>> usage. >>>> You may provide access to global group in a local wiki to achieve the >>> same >>>> goals. >>>> >>>> >>> This looks to be indeed a big regression. It's quite a common use case > to >>> have only global users and to create groups in the local wiki that > refer to >>> local users. >>> >> ^^^^^^^^ >> I suppose you means global users here. >> >> IMHO, having user managed by a separate entity (global admin), and

>> same individual users grouped by another one (local admin) is very > uncommon >> delegation of authority to me (but I may be wrong). On the other hand, >> having a local admin providing access to local ressources to global

>> (and potentially some global users) makes more sense. In that way, the > same >> admin manage its users, and group its users, and the local admin trust > the >> global admin to know its users. >> >> That said, I am not against any improvement on the way it works, if it > is a >> common use case (moreover used by workspace), we should obviously

>> it. However, I am convince that evaluating groups based on both the

>> and the targeted entity is not easily achievable and conduct to very >> complex partial caching. >> >> I have currently not implemented in the security module anything that > would >> cause all wikis to be scanned, and I would really like to avoid that to >> happen. So, it will be difficult to avoid partial caching, but we need

>> limit that at the higher level, the subwiki. This would allow to had

>> scan both the wiki of the user and the target entry to consider our

>> valid. It means subwiki will be unable to share groups (I do not think > this >> has ever worked), but it will keep performance on large farm. >> >> This would really need to be fixed sooner than later otherwise I know >>> plenty of projects for which migration to 5.0 would be almost

>>> >> >> I will need helps to achieve that for 5.0 > > ok so before changing anything we need a plan i.e. someone volunteering

Do we really need that for 5.0 ? Using the new module as a default does not means the old right service is unavailable. Couldn't we simply define which case needs to revert to the old modules in the RN, and have 5.0 without this feature ? We may even release XEM without it if workspace need so.

WDYT ? > > Thanks > -Vincent > >>> This would really need to be fixed sooner than later otherwise I know >>> plenty of projects for which migration to 5.0 would be almost

>>> >>> I think even Workspaces is using that so XEM by default would fail

>>> this. >>> >>> Ludovic >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jérôme >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - may exhibit some other minor differences compare to existing >>>>>>> implementation (but mostly consistency fixes) >>>>>>> - test could be improved, critical part (right, settler, data >>>>>>> structure, >>>>>>> cache) are covered at almost 100%, api at 60%, this is probably >>> better >>>>>>> than the old right service >>>>>>> - documentation should be improved, but this is not worse than the >>>> old >>>>>>> one anyway >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since I use the new module in all my production servers for

>>>>>>> months >>>>>>> with success, and I really think that if we do not do it now we

>>>>>>> never >>>>>>> go ahead, here is my big +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WDYT ?