[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-6929?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13038279#comment-13038279
]
Luke Lu commented on HADOOP-6929:
---------------------------------
bq. In particular, you don't want to put class names in configuration
This is a pervasive anti-pattern used in hadoop all over the place, HADOOP-7150
is supposed to address that.
bq. and certainly don't want the new SecurityContext to replace the current one.
Agreed. This is a major flaw of the current patch, though the flawed mechanism
is still workable if the new security info implements the fallback mechanism.
bq. private static ServiceLoader<SecurityInfo> securityInfoProviders = new
ServiceLoader<SecurityInfo>(SecurityInfo.class);
The usage should be:
{code}
ServiceLoader<SecurityInfo> securityInfoProviders =
ServiceLoader.load(SecurityInfo.class);
{code}
> RPC should have a way to pass Security information other than protocol
> annotations
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-6929
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-6929
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: ipc, security
> Reporter: Sharad Agarwal
> Assignee: Sharad Agarwal
> Attachments: Hadoop-6929_v1.patch
>
>
> Currently Hadoop RPC allows protocol annotations as the only way to pass
> security information. This becomes a problem if protocols are generated and
> not hand written. For example protocols generated via Avro and passed over
> Avro tunnel (AvroRpcEngine.java) can't pass the security information.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
