Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add vault store #61

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 11, 2021
Merged

add vault store #61

merged 4 commits into from
May 11, 2021

Conversation

fe80
Copy link
Contributor

@fe80 fe80 commented Oct 22, 2020

Hi,

This is a proposal, we actually work to use Vault as backend storage.

We eventually need help for review code and add spec.

Regards,

@duritong
Copy link
Owner

This is awesome and actually I though about doing it for a long time, but never got to the point where vault was required.

Anyway, I would love some more description how trocla keys are ending up in valt.

Also might it be desirable to have a (configurable) global prefix for keys in vault, so they go under their own path?

Also we should probably explain that kv is a mount in vault, which was not obvious to me at the beginning.

I wonder whether we need tests?

@IAmAStealer
Copy link

I think the main point to upgrade to vault for us might be to include acl to prepare for the future and improve global security. We do not have a main requirement now but it is a good thing to prepare for.
Trocla keys, as I understand are just a pair of key/value. the secret engine kv and kv-v2 work the same so it is pretty easy to work with.
The global prefix can just be the mount point for a start.
But we are thinking how to adapt trocla to allow more options like adding a path for the key, in order to palce them where they belong for acl later on.
Tests are surely required.

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@dje4om
Copy link

dje4om commented Oct 22, 2020

@fe80 , does the ruby vault lib do abstraction between kv v1 and kv v2 engines ?

@dje4om
Copy link

dje4om commented Oct 22, 2020

Also might it be desirable to have a (configurable) global prefix for keys in vault, so they go under their own path?

A subpath parameter could be an option to be able to use an existing kv mount but a dedicated kv mount seems fine by default
so the prefix could be the mount mount_name/secret, or with subpath mount_name/subpath/secret

@fe80
Copy link
Contributor Author

fe80 commented Oct 23, 2020

Hi @duritong

I've complete the readme with more information about vault. It's better ?

I change the kv options with mount too.

Like say @IAmAStealer , vault can be offer lot of feature require for us (history, acl, native REST API...)

The idea about a default path can be a good, we thinking about this feature too and why not another feature with subpath options to additional the key name. I propose to open an issue about this feature an add on a different merge request ?

For us it's just a poc for this moment, we need to think about the data migration an we probably run to double trocla for puppet (use vault just for put data and test performance).

The kv v1 work but add a path data, example with trocla create 'my/path/key' plain

  • v1
    Screenshot_2020-10-23 Vault(1)

  • v2
    Screenshot_2020-10-23 Vault

@duritong
Copy link
Owner

duritong commented Apr 8, 2021

Ui, I absolutely forgot about this here.

@fe80 do you see anything left?

Some rewording an clarifications
@fe80
Copy link
Contributor Author

fe80 commented May 11, 2021

Sorry I don't have see your reply.

We are on testing migration actually and It's works correctly for this time

@duritong duritong merged commit 99787c0 into duritong:main May 11, 2021
@duritong
Copy link
Owner

thank you to confirm, I'll merge and guess will release a 0.4.0 soon

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants