[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17975?focusedWorklogId=668972&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-668972
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on HADOOP-17975:
-------------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 22/Oct/21 14:48
Start Date: 22/Oct/21 14:48
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: sodonnel commented on a change in pull request #3579:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hadoop/pull/3579#discussion_r734609777
##########
File path:
hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/ipc/Client.java
##########
@@ -909,6 +898,35 @@ public AuthMethod run()
connectingThread.set(null);
}
}
+
+ private void setFallBackToSimpleAuth(AtomicBoolean fallbackToSimpleAuth)
+ throws IOException {
+ if (fallbackToSimpleAuth == null) {
+ LOG.trace("Connection {} skips setting fallbackToSimpleAuth as it is
null.", remoteId);
+ return;
+ }
+ if (authMethod == null) {
+ // setupIOStreams() will set up authMethod first, then call this
method again.
+ return;
+ }
+ LOG.trace(
+ "Setting fallbackToSimpleAuth. AuthMethod is {}. Fallback allowed by
configuration: {}. "
+ + "Security is {}.",
+ authMethod, fallbackAllowed,
+ UserGroupInformation.isSecurityEnabled() ? "enabled" : "disabled");
+ if (authMethod != AuthMethod.SIMPLE) {
+ LOG.trace("Disabling fallbackToSimpleAuth target does not require
SIMPLE authentication.");
+ fallbackToSimpleAuth.set(false);
+ } else if (UserGroupInformation.isSecurityEnabled()) {
+ if (!fallbackAllowed) {
+ throw new IOException("Server asks us to fall back to SIMPLE auth,
but this client is "
Review comment:
Should we throw AccessControlException here rather than IOE, as that is
what the original code did?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 668972)
Time Spent: 20m (was: 10m)
> Fallback to simple auth does not work for a secondary DistributedFileSystem
> instance
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-17975
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17975
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: ipc
> Reporter: István Fajth
> Assignee: István Fajth
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Time Spent: 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> The following code snippet demonstrates what is necessary to cause a failure
> in connection to a non secure cluster with fallback to SIMPLE auth allowed
> from a secure cluster.
> {code:java}
> Configuration conf = new Configuration();
> conf.setBoolean("ipc.client.fallback-to-simple-auth-allowed", true);
> URI fsUri = new URI("hdfs://<nn_uri>");
> conf.setBoolean("fs.hdfs.impl.disable.cache", true);
> FileSystem fs = FileSystem.get(fsUri, conf);
> FSDataInputStream src = fs.open(new Path("/path/to/a/file"));
> FileOutputStream dst = new FileOutputStream(File.createTempFile("foo",
> "bar"));
> IOUtils.copyBytes(src, dst, 1024);
> // The issue happens even if we re-enable cache at this point
> //conf.setBoolean("fs.hdfs.impl.disable.cache", false);
> // The issue does not happen when we close the first FileSystem object
> // before creating the second.
> //fs.close();
> FileSystem fs2 = FileSystem.get(fsUri, conf);
> FSDataInputStream src2 = fs2.open(new Path("/path/to/a/file"));
> FileOutputStream dst2 = new FileOutputStream(File.createTempFile("foo",
> "bar"));
> IOUtils.copyBytes(src2, dst2, 1024);
> {code}
> The problem is that when the DfsClient is created it creates an instance of
> AtomicBoolean, which is propagated down into the IPC layer, where the
> Client.Connection instance in setupIOStreams sets its value. This connection
> object is cached and re-used to multiplex requests against the same DataNode.
> In case of creating a second DfsClient, the AtomicBoolean reference in the
> client is a new AtomicBoolean, but the Client.Connection instance is the
> same, and as it has a socket already open to the DataNode, it returns
> immediatelly from setupIOStreams, leaving the fallbackToSimpleAuth
> AtomicBoolean false as it is created in the DfsClient.
> This AtomicBoolean on the other hand controls how the SaslDataTransferClient
> handles the connection in the above level, and with this value left on the
> default false, the SaslDataTransferClient of the second DfsClient will not
> fall back to SIMPLE authentication but will try to send a SASL handshake when
> connecting to the DataNode.
>
> The access to the FileSystem via the second DfsClient fails with the
> following exception:
> {code}
> WARN hdfs.DFSClient: Failed to connect to /<dn_ip>:<dn_port> for file <file>
> for block BP-531773307-<nn_ip>-1634685133591:blk_1073741826_1002, add to
> deadNodes and continue.
> java.io.EOFException: Unexpected EOF while trying to read response from server
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.protocolPB.PBHelperClient.vintPrefixed(PBHelperClient.java:552)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.protocol.datatransfer.sasl.DataTransferSaslUtil.readSaslMessage(DataTransferSaslUtil.java:215)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.protocol.datatransfer.sasl.SaslDataTransferClient.doSaslHandshake(SaslDataTransferClient.java:455)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.protocol.datatransfer.sasl.SaslDataTransferClient.getSaslStreams(SaslDataTransferClient.java:393)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.protocol.datatransfer.sasl.SaslDataTransferClient.send(SaslDataTransferClient.java:267)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.protocol.datatransfer.sasl.SaslDataTransferClient.checkTrustAndSend(SaslDataTransferClient.java:215)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.protocol.datatransfer.sasl.SaslDataTransferClient.peerSend(SaslDataTransferClient.java:160)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.DFSUtilClient.peerFromSocketAndKey(DFSUtilClient.java:648)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.DFSClient.newConnectedPeer(DFSClient.java:2980)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.client.impl.BlockReaderFactory.nextTcpPeer(BlockReaderFactory.java:822)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.client.impl.BlockReaderFactory.getRemoteBlockReaderFromTcp(BlockReaderFactory.java:747)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.client.impl.BlockReaderFactory.build(BlockReaderFactory.java:380)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.DFSInputStream.getBlockReader(DFSInputStream.java:658)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.DFSInputStream.blockSeekTo(DFSInputStream.java:589)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.DFSInputStream.readWithStrategy(DFSInputStream.java:771)
> at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.DFSInputStream.read(DFSInputStream.java:840)
> at java.io.DataInputStream.read(DataInputStream.java:100)
> at org.apache.hadoop.io.IOUtils.copyBytes(IOUtils.java:94)
> at DfsClientTest3.main(DfsClientTest3.java:30)
> {code}
>
> The DataNode in the meantime logs the following:
> {code}
> ERROR org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataNode:
> <dn_host>:<dn_port>:DataXceiver error processing unknown operation src:
> /<client_ip>:<client_port> dst: /<dn_ip>:<dn_port>
> java.io.IOException: Version Mismatch (Expected: 28, Received: -8531 )
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.protocol.datatransfer.Receiver.readOp(Receiver.java:70)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataXceiver.run(DataXceiver.java:222)
> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
> {code}
> This happens only if the second client is connecting to the same DataNode as
> the first one did, so might seem intermittent in case the clients are reading
> different files, but happens always if the two client reads the same file
> with replication factor 1.
> We ran into this issue during running HBase ExportSnapshot tool to move a
> snapshot from a non-secure to a secure cluster, the issue is loosely related
> to HBASE-12819 and HBASE-20433 and similar problems, I am linking these so
> that HBase team will see how this is relevant for them.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
