--- /dev/null
+// -*- mode:C++; tab-width:8; c-basic-offset:2; indent-tabs-mode:t -*-
+// vim: ts=8 sw=2 smarttab
+
+#ifndef CEPH_RGW_AUTH_FILTERS_H
+#define CEPH_RGW_AUTH_FILTERS_H
+
+#include <type_traits>
+
+#include <boost/logic/tribool.hpp>
+#include <boost/optional.hpp>
+
+#include "rgw_common.h"
+#include "rgw_auth.h"
+
+namespace rgw {
+namespace auth {
+
+/* Abstract decorator over any implementation of rgw::auth::IdentityApplier
+ * which could be provided both as a pointer-to-object or the object itself. */
+template <typename DecorateeT>
+class DecoratedApplier : public rgw::auth::IdentityApplier {
+ typedef typename std::remove_pointer<DecorateeT>::type DerefedDecorateeT;
+
+ static_assert(std::is_base_of<rgw::auth::IdentityApplier,
+ DerefedDecorateeT>::value,
+ "DecorateeT must be a subclass of rgw::auth::IdentityApplier");
+
+ DecorateeT decoratee;
+
+ /* There is an indirection layer over accessing decoratee to share the same
+ * code base between dynamic and static decorators. The difference is about
+ * what we store internally: pointer to a decorated object versus the whole
+ * object itself. Googling for "SFINAE" can help to understand the code. */
+ template <typename T = void,
+ typename std::enable_if<
+ std::is_pointer<DecorateeT>::value, T>::type* = nullptr>
+ DerefedDecorateeT& get_decoratee() {
+ return *decoratee;
+ }
+
+ template <typename T = void,
+ typename std::enable_if<
+ ! std::is_pointer<DecorateeT>::value, T>::type* = nullptr>
+ DerefedDecorateeT& get_decoratee() {
+ return decoratee;
+ }
+
+ template <typename T = void,
+ typename std::enable_if<
+ std::is_pointer<DecorateeT>::value, T>::type* = nullptr>
+ const DerefedDecorateeT& get_decoratee() const {
+ return *decoratee;
+ }
+
+ template <typename T = void,
+ typename std::enable_if<
+ ! std::is_pointer<DecorateeT>::value, T>::type* = nullptr>
+ const DerefedDecorateeT& get_decoratee() const {
+ return decoratee;
+ }
+
+public:
+ DecoratedApplier(DecorateeT&& decoratee)
+ : decoratee(std::forward<DecorateeT>(decoratee)) {
+ }
+
+ uint32_t get_perms_from_aclspec(const aclspec_t& aclspec) const override {
+ return get_decoratee().get_perms_from_aclspec(aclspec);
+ }
+
+ bool is_admin_of(const rgw_user& uid) const override {
+ return get_decoratee().is_admin_of(uid);
+ }
+
+ bool is_owner_of(const rgw_user& uid) const override {
+ return get_decoratee().is_owner_of(uid);
+ }
+
+ uint32_t get_perm_mask() const override {
+ return get_decoratee().get_perm_mask();
+ }
+
+ bool is_identity(
+ const boost::container::flat_set<Principal>& ids) const override {
+ return get_decoratee().is_identity(ids);
+ }
+
+ void to_str(std::ostream& out) const override {
+ get_decoratee().to_str(out);
+ }
+
+ void load_acct_info(RGWUserInfo& user_info) const override { /* out */
+ return get_decoratee().load_acct_info(user_info);
+ }
+
+ void modify_request_state(req_state * s) const override { /* in/out */
+ return get_decoratee().modify_request_state(s);
+ }
+};
+
+
+template <typename T>
+class ThirdPartyAccountApplier : public DecoratedApplier<T> {
+ /* const */RGWRados* const store;
+ const rgw_user acct_user_override;
+
+public:
+ /* A value representing situations where there is no requested account
+ * override. In other words, acct_user_override will be equal to this
+ * constant where the request isn't a cross-tenant one. */
+ static const rgw_user UNKNOWN_ACCT;
+
+ template <typename U>
+ ThirdPartyAccountApplier(RGWRados* const store,
+ const rgw_user acct_user_override,
+ U&& decoratee)
+ : DecoratedApplier<T>(std::move(decoratee)),
+ store(store),
+ acct_user_override(acct_user_override) {
+ }
+
+ void to_str(std::ostream& out) const override;
+ void load_acct_info(RGWUserInfo& user_info) const override; /* out */
+};
+
+/* static declaration: UNKNOWN_ACCT will be an empty rgw_user that is a result
+ * of the default construction. */
+template <typename T>
+const rgw_user ThirdPartyAccountApplier<T>::UNKNOWN_ACCT;
+
+template <typename T>
+void ThirdPartyAccountApplier<T>::to_str(std::ostream& out) const
+{
+ out << "rgw::auth::ThirdPartyAccountApplier(" + acct_user_override.to_str() + ")"
+ << " -> ";
+ DecoratedApplier<T>::to_str(out);
+}
+
+template <typename T>
+void ThirdPartyAccountApplier<T>::load_acct_info(RGWUserInfo& user_info) const
+{
+ if (UNKNOWN_ACCT == acct_user_override) {
+ /* There is no override specified by the upper layer. This means that we'll
+ * load the account owned by the authenticated identity (aka auth_user). */
+ DecoratedApplier<T>::load_acct_info(user_info);
+ } else if (DecoratedApplier<T>::is_owner_of(acct_user_override)) {
+ /* The override has been specified but the account belongs to the authenticated
+ * identity. We may safely forward the call to a next stage. */
+ DecoratedApplier<T>::load_acct_info(user_info);
+ } else {
+ /* Compatibility mechanism for multi-tenancy. For more details refer to
+ * load_acct_info method of rgw::auth::RemoteApplier. */
+ if (acct_user_override.tenant.empty()) {
+ const rgw_user tenanted_uid(acct_user_override.id, acct_user_override.id);
+
+ if (rgw_get_user_info_by_uid(store, tenanted_uid, user_info) >= 0) {
+ /* Succeeded. */
+ return;
+ }
+ }
+
+ const int ret = rgw_get_user_info_by_uid(store, acct_user_override, user_info);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ /* We aren't trying to recover from ENOENT here. It's supposed that creating
+ * someone else's account isn't a thing we want to support in this filter. */
+ if (ret == -ENOENT) {
+ throw -EACCES;
+ } else {
+ throw ret;
+ }
+ }
+
+ }
+}
+
+template <typename T> static inline
+ThirdPartyAccountApplier<T> add_3rdparty(RGWRados* const store,
+ const rgw_user acct_user_override,
+ T&& t) {
+ return ThirdPartyAccountApplier<T>(store, acct_user_override,
+ std::forward<T>(t));
+}
+
+
+template <typename T>
+class SysReqApplier : public DecoratedApplier<T> {
+ CephContext* const cct;
+ /*const*/ RGWRados* const store;
+ const RGWHTTPArgs& args;
+ mutable boost::tribool is_system;
+
+public:
+ template <typename U>
+ SysReqApplier(CephContext* const cct,
+ /*const*/ RGWRados* const store,
+ const req_state* const s,
+ U&& decoratee)
+ : DecoratedApplier<T>(std::forward<T>(decoratee)),
+ cct(cct),
+ store(store),
+ args(s->info.args),
+ is_system(boost::logic::indeterminate) {
+ }
+
+ void to_str(std::ostream& out) const override;
+ void load_acct_info(RGWUserInfo& user_info) const override; /* out */
+ void modify_request_state(req_state* s) const override; /* in/out */
+};
+
+template <typename T>
+void SysReqApplier<T>::to_str(std::ostream& out) const
+{
+ out << "rgw::auth::SysReqApplier" << " -> ";
+ DecoratedApplier<T>::to_str(out);
+}
+
+template <typename T>
+void SysReqApplier<T>::load_acct_info(RGWUserInfo& user_info) const
+{
+ DecoratedApplier<T>::load_acct_info(user_info);
+ is_system = user_info.system;
+
+ if (is_system) {
+ //dout(20) << "system request" << dendl;
+
+ rgw_user effective_uid(args.sys_get(RGW_SYS_PARAM_PREFIX "uid"));
+ if (! effective_uid.empty()) {
+ /* We aren't writing directly to user_info for consistency and security
+ * reasons. rgw_get_user_info_by_uid doesn't trigger the operator=() but
+ * calls ::decode instead. */
+ RGWUserInfo euser_info;
+ if (rgw_get_user_info_by_uid(store, effective_uid, euser_info) < 0) {
+ //ldout(s->cct, 0) << "User lookup failed!" << dendl;
+ throw -EACCES;
+ }
+ user_info = euser_info;
+ }
+ }
+}
+
+template <typename T>
+void SysReqApplier<T>::modify_request_state(req_state* const s) const
+{
+ if (boost::logic::indeterminate(is_system)) {
+ RGWUserInfo unused_info;
+ load_acct_info(unused_info);
+ }
+
+ if (is_system) {
+ s->info.args.set_system();
+ s->system_request = true;
+ }
+}
+
+template <typename T> static inline
+SysReqApplier<T> add_sysreq(CephContext* const cct,
+ /* const */ RGWRados* const store,
+ const req_state* const s,
+ T&& t) {
+ return SysReqApplier<T>(cct, store, s, std::forward<T>(t));
+}
+
+} /* namespace auth */
+} /* namespace rgw */
+
+#endif /* CEPH_RGW_AUTH_FILTERS_H */
Code Review / stor4nfv.git / blobdiff