From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wido den Hollander Subject: Re: Bucket name restrictions in RGW Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:24:37 +0200 Message-ID: <557C9185.1050305@42on.com> References: <557B2875.1090505@42on.com> <1505040171.13879951.1434150828495.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from websrv.42on.com ([31.25.102.167]:47974 "EHLO websrv.42on.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751125AbbFMUYl (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2015 16:24:41 -0400 Received: from [IPv6:2a02:f6e:8007:0:2959:506:f3ac:544b] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:f6e:8007:0:2959:506:f3ac:544b]) by websrv.42on.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1029C4B60 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:24:37 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org On 06/13/2015 01:29 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 07:13:48PM -0400, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: >> Whatever we end up doing, we need to make it configurable, and also >> keep backward compatibility, so that buckets that were created prior >> to such a change will still remain accessible. Some setups would not >> need this limitation and will find it too restricting so I'm not sure >> that it's really that needed. In short, make it configurable. > Configurable: > - Can we obsolete 'rgw relaxed s3 bucket names', and convert it to a new > option: 'rgw s3 bucket name create strictness' > Value '0' => existing 'rgw relaxed s3 bucket names = true' logic > Value '1' => existing 'rgw relaxed s3 bucket names = false' logic > Value '2' => compliance with AmazonS3 DNS rules > > Backwards-Compatibility: > - Make a new option 'rgw s3 bucket name access strictness' > Same values as above, but used to access buckets, not create new ones. > - Proposed default values: > rgw s3 bucket name create strictness = 2 > rgw s3 bucket name access strictness = 1 > > So you can only create DNS-compliant buckets, but still access your > existing non-compliant buckets. Maybe also have keywords of major > releases and 'relaxed' supported in addition to the integer values. > > I don't like the names of the config keys, but I'm coming up blank on > something that is shorter while still being immediately clear. > Seems like a good plan to me. I would like to restrict them as much as possible, but we shouldn't break anything which is online now. -- Wido den Hollander 42on B.V. Ceph trainer and consultant Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902 Skype: contact42on