[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10070?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13900639#comment-13900639
 ] 

Daryn Sharp commented on HADOOP-10070:
--------------------------------------

+1 It's a good change, but I'm confused how it solves this problem.  The 
ConnectionId is based on addr, so the yarn connection should have already 
created a new connection and used the principal from the second config - 
although it would have continued using that principal for future connections 
even if it changed?  I think your patch solves the latter.

> RPC client doesn't use per-connection conf to determine server's expected 
> Kerberos principal name
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HADOOP-10070
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10070
>             Project: Hadoop Common
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: security
>    Affects Versions: 2.2.0
>            Reporter: Aaron T. Myers
>            Assignee: Aaron T. Myers
>         Attachments: HADOOP-10070.patch, HADOOP-10070.patch, 
> TestKerberosClient.java
>
>
> Currently, RPC client caches the {{Configuration}} object that was passed in 
> to its constructor and uses that same conf for every connection it sets up 
> thereafter. This can cause problems when security is enabled if the 
> {{Configuration}} object provided when the first RPC connection was made does 
> not contain all possible entries for all server principals that will later be 
> used by subsequent connections. When this happens, it will result in later 
> RPC connections incorrectly failing with the error "Failed to specify 
> server's Kerberos principal name" even though the principal name was 
> specified in the {{Configuration}} object provided on later RPC connection 
> attempts.
> I believe this means that we've inadvertently reintroduced HADOOP-6907.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)

Reply via email to