From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Abhishek L Subject: Re: Bucket name restrictions in RGW Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 11:00:23 +0530 Message-ID: <87lhfmx3f4.fsf@gmail.com> References: <557B2875.1090505@42on.com> <1505040171.13879951.1434150828495.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <557C9185.1050305@42on.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com ([209.85.192.171]:33120 "EHLO mail-pd0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750968AbbFNFdZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Jun 2015 01:33:25 -0400 Received: by pdjn11 with SMTP id n11so49799335pdj.0 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:33:24 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: <557C9185.1050305@42on.com> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Wido den Hollander Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wido den Hollander writes: > 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' =3D> existing 'rgw relaxed s3 bucket names =3D true' logic >> Value '1' =3D> existing 'rgw relaxed s3 bucket names =3D false' logic >> Value '2' =3D> compliance with AmazonS3 DNS rules Alternatively we could just add an opt `rgw s3 bucket name create strictness` (maybe `rgw s3 bucket dns comply` instead) as a bool which would set your value '2' logic when both `relaxed s3 bucket names` and this value are set, so that we dont break backwards compatibility? >>=20 >> 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 =3D 2 >> rgw s3 bucket name access strictness =3D 1 >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 > > 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. > > --=20 > Wido den Hollander > 42on B.V. > Ceph trainer and consultant > > Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902 > Skype: contact42on =2D-=20 Abhishek --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"; name="signature.asc"; description="Digital signature" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVfRF5AAoJEPnwZB8bZe1fJfYH/iLxeUcMD6IMQwJsT2R4uBbH rKWgJC1KRuHasFrjmnF+SemBFVVWV5gwlCCF23Vi37+cvUWhvxXsKkhCXJN1tOfJ uVU17VGu3EdGUbwcZfT7IL7lC3NQhbGOIfwk7AFAn2UsTYwbHXXAa9odlJimZ3Hp 6rf8rqR6CpRns1v/N81ol3YYAYcTEYOnWC5ilXev1qohHh34IkigvVQ5k8qciTMc h3LdHpe4fEWPTKsql6J5DUjox5EBwh4s794nxIZFZZ9xaRoOZxB8dc9t0Y+VSPkb gntoTeIW8HyM17CZj82iDLfO09rvAkQYB1bSeofuUhZDtVwvEApvquQWB4f8xwk= =omSD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--