From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
To: "Proxmox VE development discussion" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
"Fabian Grünbichler" <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH access-control] fix #4518: improve ACL computation performance
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 10:42:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <66c708b5-55db-ad60-bbdb-25762fd8160c@proxmox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230215094413.196673-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Am 15/02/2023 um 10:44 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler:
> by switching to a tree-based in-memory structure, like we do in PBS.
>
> instead of parsing ACL entries into a hash using the full ACL path as key for
> each entry, parse them into a tree-like nested hash. when evaluating ACLs,
> iterating over all path prefixes starting at '/' is needed anyway, so this is a
> more natural way to store and access the parsed configuration.
>
> some performance data, timing `pveum user permissions $user > /dev/null` for
> various amounts of ACL entries in user.cfg
>
> entries | stock | patched | speedup
> -------------------------------------
> 1k | 1.234s | 0.241s | 5.12
> 2k | 4.480s | 0.262s | 17.09
> 20k | 7m25s | 0.987s | 450.86
>
> similarly, an /access/ticket request such as the one happening on login goes
> down from 4.27s to 109ms with 2k entries (testing with 20k entries fails
> because the request times out after 30s, but with the patch it takes 336ms).
>
> the underlying issue is that these two code paths not only iterate over *all
> defined ACL paths* to get a complete picture of a user's/token's privileges,
> but the fact that that ACL computation for each checked path itself did another
> such loop in PVE::AccessControl::roles().
>
> it is enough to iterate over the to-be-checked ACL path in a component-wise
> fashion in order to handle role propagation, e.g., when looking at /a/b/c/d,
> iterate over
>
> /
> /a
> /a/b
> /a/b/c
> /a/b/c/d
>
> in turn instead of all defined ACL paths.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
> ---
> we only use(d) $cfg->{acl} in pve-access-control, and the API doesn't expose
> the full parsed user.cfg anywhere, since we have separate endpoints for each
> type of entity stored within, so I don't think this counts as breaking change.
>
> could of course still be post-poned to 8.0 if desired.
>
> src/PVE/API2/ACL.pm | 25 ++++---
> src/PVE/AccessControl.pm | 132 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> src/PVE/RPCEnvironment.pm | 14 ++--
> src/test/parser_writer.pl | 52 ++++++++++----
> src/test/realm_sync_test.pl | 54 ++++++---------
> 5 files changed, 179 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-)
>
>
applied, thanks!
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-06 9:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-15 9:44 [pve-devel] " Fabian Grünbichler
2023-03-06 9:42 ` Thomas Lamprecht [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=66c708b5-55db-ad60-bbdb-25762fd8160c@proxmox.com \
--to=t.lamprecht@proxmox.com \
--cc=f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com \
--cc=pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox