Uplink CLI generate S3 --writeonly

I generate an access grant for my personal machine with all permissions (RWLD). I am trying to create a short term access credential for S3 compatibility.

When I run this command, I receive a “Error: permission is empty”.
uplink share --writeonly --register sj://[bucket_name]/[folder]

However, when I run, everything works as expected.
uplink share --readonly=true --register sj://[bucket_name]/[folder]

What am I doing wrong? Also, is this command available in the Python bindings? I couldn’t figure out how to generate the S3 access in the Python bindings.


When I run the following, the command runs, but the permissions are all disallowed. I am expecting that Upload permissions to be active.

uplink share --writeonly --not-after +1h --register sj://[bucket]/[folder]

Sharing access to satellite 12EayRS2V1kEsWESU9QMRseFhdxYxKicsiFmxrsLZHeLUtdps3S@us1.storj.io:7777
=========== ACCESS RESTRICTIONS ==========================================================
Download : Disallowed
Upload : Disallowed
Lists : Disallowed
Deletes : Disallowed
NotBefore : No restriction
NotAfter : 2021-11-17 17:53:21

Regarding Python bindings, our dev has confirmed that they have the functionality that uplink-c exposed in 1.2.2 - so we do not expect S3 functions to be available.

I’d like to make a product feature request for this. Could it please get prioritized? It would save me a lot of workarounds to have that feature.

If I don’t have that feature, I would need to have my code call into bash to run the Storj CLI directly and issue tokens. From there I would need to parse the response back in my code. Lots of room for error.

Is there any feedback on my core issue of the access grant permissions?

You can make a feature request here: DCS feature requests - voting - Storj Community Forum (official), however the python binding is a third party repo, it depends on their maintainers. So maybe better to make an issue in the Issues · storj-thirdparty/uplink-python · GitHub

I would suggest not to use the s3 protocol where possible. It has limitations mentioned here: Programmatic Granting of new Access keys - #2 by Alexey

For grant permissions - you need to specify

uplink share --readonly=false --writeonly --not-after +1h --register sj://[bucket]/[folder]

I know it feels counter-intuitive, so I made an internal ticket a while ago. This problem should be solved in the uplinkng tool (it’s expected to be merged to uplink when all features will mature), see [Tech Preview] Uplinkng (new enhanced uplink cli), Changelog v1.42.4, Release preparation v1.43

The explanation of such a behavior - the uplink share command generates read-only grants by default, thus specifying the --writeonly option will extends the default --readonly=true option with the --writeonly=true option, thus by binary logic it results to no permissions at all. So you need to disable the read-only flag and enable write-only flag. Please, note - it will produce:

=========== ACCESS RESTRICTIONS ==========================================================
Download  : Disallowed
Upload    : Allowed
Lists     : Disallowed
Deletes   : Allowed
NotBefore : No restriction
NotAfter  : 2021-11-18 12:08:59

So, if you want to disable deletes or enable downloads - you need to explicitly specify that.

Just some more technical details: Generate S3 access with an existing grant is easy, it’s just an HTTP call to the authservice.

Creating a new grant with restricting an existing one is slightly more complex, the existing api key should be parsed, and more restriction should be added.

Check this diagrams for more details:



I agree with the feature request, it would be great to include. But in case you would like to implement it your own, just let me know. I can find the exact details of parsing the grant/macaroon… The only tricky part is the marshall/unmarshall IMHO, after that the signatures are based on standard APIs…

I don’t plan on implementing it myself. Unfortunately, I have a growing list of developer workarounds in Storj I have to implement already.

While I wouldn’t mind skipping the S3 altogether, the Storj Swift bindings don’t work for iOS (Ticket). I used the AWSS3 client library because it has a good tutorials and integration for things like upload status and pausing. Also S3 gives me some degree of portability in case there are other issues.

1 Like

Could you please share it but the iOS ticket?

See this note:

These Silicon models have a lot of problems everywhere as far as I can see the news…
The Apple is doing their things as usual :upside_down_face:

Thanks for sharing the info!

I just need this to work in iOS for my application! Although I am planning to upgrade machines in the next few months to the new MacBook Pro, so support on M1 would be nice to have.

1 Like

i am thanksfull to you for this information.

1 Like