[keycloak-user] Permissions: Slow/complex interactions

[Corentin Dupont]

This is what I have:
JAVA_OPTS:  -server -Xms64m -Xmx512m -XX:MetaspaceSize=96M
-XX:MaxMetaspaceSize=256m -Djava.net.preferIPv4Stack=true
-Djboss.modules.system.pkgs=org.jboss.byteman -Djava.awt.headless=true

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Btw, how much you set your heap?
>
> Do you have limitations on cpu ?
>
> Could you share your JVM settings ?
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> We have now a performance testsuite (thanks to Tomaz) that can generate
>> also generate datasets to cover different scenarios. I'm the middle of
>> checking Tomaz work and preparing some datasets to include in our testsuite.
>>
>> I'm going to give a try to your use case and see if I can get the same
>> numbers. Not sure if this is your case, but I found some performance issues
>> when defining multiple resources with a type where the owner is the
>> resource server itself. This causes an overhead during evaluation where the
>> engine tries to consider permissions granted to any of these typed
>> resources. Someone reported this some time ago, and IMO, this is an invalid
>> usage of resource types ... Not sure if this is your case though.
>>
>> More answers inline.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Corentin Dupont <
>> corentin.dupont at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Corentin Dupont <
>>>> corentin.dupont at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>> I experience some performance issue on my API server using Keycloak.
>>>>> After someone issue a GET on my API server, here is what happens:
>>>>>
>>>>> - API server -> DB server: get requested resources
>>>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get client token (to get resources)
>>>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get resources (to complement DB server with
>>>>> resource owner & visibility)
>>>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get user token (to get permission)
>>>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get permission (to filter resources)
>>>>> At this point the filtered resources are returned.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this process is quite slow. I noticed a call to KC can take up to
>>>>> 100ms.
>>>>> The complete call on the API server can take up to 600ms on my laptop,
>>>>> in
>>>>> localhost setting.
>>>>> The delays become noticeable on my UI...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you able to confirm the step(s) spending more time to process ? If
>>>> when obtaining client tokens, resources or during evaluation ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I made a quick benchmark, here is the result:
>>>
>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get client token: 400ms
>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get resources: 1356ms
>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get user token: 162ms
>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get permission: 2400ms
>>> Total: 4366ms
>>>
>>> However, this timings are obtained only on the first try after I reboot
>>> the server.
>>> The next calls are faster. Maybe it's due to caching?
>>>
>>
>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get client token: 17ms
>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get resources: 19ms
>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get user token: 92ms
>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get permission: 314ms
>>> Total: 476ms
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, it is caching. But numbers for steps #2 and #4 are high. Will see
>> what we can improve.
>>
>> Thanks for the numbers. Wondering if you have percentiles for these
>> requests ? Or this happens when you send a single request ?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So yes, it's the evaluation taking time (and user token on a lesser
>>> extent).
>>> On this call, I need to get permissions for all resources on one scope:
>>> permissions=#sensors:view
>>> Because I need to filter out the resources the user cannot see.
>>> There are around 70 resources and 3 policies (one user policy and 2
>>> javascript).
>>> Keycloak is in a docker container.
>>>
>>
>> I'm working with more aggresive numbers, and results are better than
>> yours. However, all depends on how you are setting up your settings. Need
>> to check your setup and see if I can create a dataset based on it.
>>
>> Could you send me an example of those javascript policies ? Are they
>> doing much ? Do you have more than one user per user policy ?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, could you elaborate more what this step is doing: "- API server
>>>> -> Keycloak: get resources (to complement DB server with
>>>> resource owner & visibility)" ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I read the resources from Keycloak (authz/protection/resource_set/)
>>> because I need to return the owner of the resource in my server response.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With a resource SPI strategy (if developed), it should be:
>>>>>
>>>>> - API server -> DB server: get requested resources
>>>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get user token (to get permission)
>>>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get permission (to filter resources)
>>>>> - Keycloak -> DB server: get resources
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a little less requests. Additional gain is that resources are
>>>>> not
>>>>> split between 2 databases.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if resources could be pushed during the permission request?
>>>>> Like a
>>>>> "pushed claim".
>>>>> This would be even more straightforward:
>>>>>
>>>>> - API server -> DB server: get requested resources
>>>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get user token (to get permission)
>>>>> - API server -> Keycloak: get permission and push resources
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Can this work?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this is an area we might want to improve in order to allow
>>>> evaluating permissions solely based on claims pushed to the server. That
>>>> means you won't need to manage resources in the server but rely on policies
>>>> to process the "pushed claims".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes that would be great. Let me open a Jira to track this.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> keycloak-user mailing list
>>>>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>