3 p.m.
Now I see. You have two permissions for same resource/scope combo. They are
pretty much conflicting with each other so you will get a DENY.
That is something I was holding for some time where we could provide a way
to configure how permissions decisions are made. Like using those decision
strategies we have for policies with permissions. But I think we should
probably wait for more feedback before doing this. Good thing is that the
way we have things working it is pretty much easy to provide different
configuration options that may change policy evaluation behavior ....
Sorry, but what you mean by "how multiple permissions are supposed to
evaluate" ? Is it related with the other thread where we are discussing
performance ?
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Policy1: has role FOO, Unanimous, POSITIVE
Policy2: has role BAR, Unamious, POSITIVE
Permission 1: Policy 1 Resource x, Scope y. Unanimous. POSITIVE
Permission 2: Policy 2 Resource x, Scope y. Unamimous. POSITIVE
User role mapping FOO. Evaluate. Failure, User does not have Scope y on
Resource x.
If I remove permission 1 and 2, and aggregate Policy 1 and Policy 2 with
Affirmative permission, it does evaluate correctly. I would actually
prefer this behavior, but if I depend on that behavior, I don't want it
changing on me.
Can you please map out how multiple permissions are supposed to evaluate?
On 4/1/17 3:22 PM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
Sure, if you are getting different results it is a bug. Will look at that.
Will try to simulate and will ask you for more info if needed.
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> The evaluator can't be different than what is returned in the
> RPT,otherwise, what is the point of the evaluator?
>
> On 4/1/17 2:19 PM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
>
> The evaluator may give you this output. But what about the permissions
> you got in the token (that 'Show Authorization Data` link on top of the
> result page) ? If you got PERMIT for a scope you should see it in the token.
>
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> So all permissions must pass when evaluating a resource/scope
>> authorization? Just did some testing in admin console. I have 2
>> permissions. I used the policy evaluator for a resource/scope combo.
>> One permission passes, the other fails. Evaluator result is DENY:
>>
>>
>> Result
>> *DENY*
>> Scopes
>> No scopes available.
>> Policies
>> # *map.role.permission.realm-management.manage-authorization
>> <http://localhost:8180/auth/admin/master/console/#/realms/te
>> st/clients/b13a8867-5d75-4c8b-8927-5e806bd77518/authz/resour
>> ce-server/permission/scope/776b79cf-57e2-4b55-b9e5-84195c89fd7a
>> >*decision
>> was*PERMIT*by*UNANIMOUS*decision.
>>
>> * *role.policy.realm-managementmanage-users
>> <http://localhost:8180/auth/admin/master/console/#/realms/te
>> st/clients/b13a8867-5d75-4c8b-8927-5e806bd77518/authz/resour
>> ce-server/policy/role/29968cd1-f44e-47db-868d-c7bd61b827dd>*voted
>> to*PERMIT*.
>> * *role.policy.realm-managementmanage-authorization
>> <http://localhost:8180/auth/admin/master/console/#/realms/te
>> st/clients/b13a8867-5d75-4c8b-8927-5e806bd77518/authz/resour
>> ce-server/policy/role/c4da0818-432a-41d2-94a8-0fc08051a609>*voted
>> to*PERMIT*.
>>
>> # *role-mapper-permission
>> <http://localhost:8180/auth/admin/master/console/#/realms/te
>> st/clients/b13a8867-5d75-4c8b-8927-5e806bd77518/authz/resour
>> ce-server/permission/scope/e8acb66c-fe1f-4310-946a-fbb638449e77
>> >*decision
>> was*DENY*by*UNANIMOUS*decision.
>>
>> * *role-mapper
>> <http://localhost:8180/auth/admin/master/console/#/realms/te
>> st/clients/b13a8867-5d75-4c8b-8927-5e806bd77518/authz/resour
>> ce-server/policy/role/41b7d1fe-c40f-4437-93d2-aa5768227fd4>*voted
>> to*DENY*.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-dev mailing list
>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>
>
>
>