feat: finer-grained ACLs for server accesses #90

Open
raito wants to merge 1 commit from acls into main
Owner

In the process of adding multi-tenant infrastructure, it seems relevant
to add finer-grained ACLs.

Related to #89.

Signed-off-by: Raito Bezarius masterancpp@gmail.com

In the process of adding multi-tenant infrastructure, it seems relevant to add finer-grained ACLs. Related to https://git.lix.systems/the-distro/infra/issues/89. Signed-off-by: Raito Bezarius <masterancpp@gmail.com>
raito added 1 commit 2024-08-01 21:46:13 +00:00
In the process of adding multi-tenant infrastructure, it seems relevant
to add finer-grained ACLs.

Signed-off-by: Raito Bezarius <masterancpp@gmail.com>
Author
Owner

Confirmed via dry-activation that this doesn't remove all SSH keys from the universe: /nix/store/bwj5af2f257azmir090g08d3jy2hvnma-root-authorized_keys on public01.

Confirmed via `dry-activation` that this doesn't remove all SSH keys from the universe: `/nix/store/bwj5af2f257azmir090g08d3jy2hvnma-root-authorized_keys` on public01.
raito changed title from WIP: feat: finer-grained ACLs for server accesses to feat: finer-grained ACLs for server accesses 2024-08-01 22:02:31 +00:00
Owner

Do we need all those invisible unicode characters?

Do we need all those invisible unicode characters?
Author
Owner

Do we need all those invisible unicode characters?

we don't but i keep generating them for no reason

> Do we need all those invisible unicode characters? we don't but i keep generating them for no reason
Owner

Well, other than that it looks a bit convoluted in how it reverses the group -> users and user -> groups mapping, but I guess it's fine

Well, other than that it looks a bit convoluted in how it reverses the group -> users and user -> groups mapping, but I guess it's fine
yu-re-ka approved these changes 2024-08-02 19:43:21 +00:00
Author
Owner

Well, other than that it looks a bit convoluted in how it reverses the group -> users and user -> groups mapping, but I guess it's fine

Hm, if you think it's better to go in another direction, I'm all for it ; it doesn't have to be merged that fast.

> Well, other than that it looks a bit convoluted in how it reverses the group -> users and user -> groups mapping, but I guess it's fine Hm, if you think it's better to go in another direction, I'm all for it ; it doesn't have to be merged that fast.
This pull request can be merged automatically.
This branch is out-of-date with the base branch
You are not authorized to merge this pull request.
View command line instructions

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.
git fetch -u origin acls:acls
git checkout acls

Merge

Merge the changes and update on Forgejo.
git checkout main
git merge --no-ff acls
git checkout main
git merge --ff-only acls
git checkout acls
git rebase main
git checkout main
git merge --no-ff acls
git checkout main
git merge --squash acls
git checkout main
git merge --ff-only acls
git checkout main
git merge acls
git push origin main
Sign in to join this conversation.
No reviewers
No labels
No milestone
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: the-distro/infra#90
No description provided.