Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 17, 2020. It is now read-only.

Supply AMQP operation to resource check #37

Closed
uvzubovs opened this issue Jun 23, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

Supply AMQP operation to resource check #37

uvzubovs opened this issue Jun 23, 2016 · 3 comments
Labels

Comments

@uvzubovs
Copy link

Currently resource_path takes:

  • username - the name of the user
  • vhost - the name of the virtual host containing the resource
  • resource - the type of resource (exchange, queue)
  • name - the name of the resource
  • permission - the access level to the resource (configure, write, read)

However, it is not clear what operation is being attempted. For instance, queue.bind and queue.unbind are both 'write' operations on the queue.

Also, there is no routing key. Can it be added (perhaps as a generic bag of attributes associated with an operation)? I understand that standard Rabbit authorization model does not go so deep so to consider routing keys, but since you give us control of the authorization repository, we would like to restrict to which topics (routing keys) the consumers may bind.

Thanks!

@Amithpn
Copy link

Amithpn commented Jan 19, 2017

Any progress with this issue? Anything you found?

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member

The routing key part is addressed in rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server#505 (#44) by introducing a separate endpoint.

The granularity of permissions in RabbitMQ is read, write, configure and that has been the case for a decade. Starting with 3.7.0, there are separate read and write permissions for topics as of 3.7.0 (rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server#505 (#44) only introduce the write part but we decided to separately add a read one).

I'm not convinced per-operation granularity is essential: very very few users ask for it. The earliest it can be considered for is now 3.8.0.

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member

The granularity of permissions in RabbitMQ is read, write, configure and that has been the case for a decade

so we will keep it this way => this is a wontfix.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants