[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10565?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14043762#comment-14043762
 ] 

Benoy Antony commented on HADOOP-10565:
---------------------------------------

The two properties {{networkaddress.cache.ttl}} and 
{{networkaddress.cache.negative.ttl}} are not system properties. They are 
security properties. So they may not something that an Admin tweaks regularly. 
Also there are many posts about how this caching is broken.

The other option will be to cache it by default during initialization iinside 
_MachineList_ including negative caching. This will make sure that there won't 
be any lookups done during authorization. The cache will be flushed when the 
proxyuser config is refreshed via -refreshSuperUserConfiguration. Please let me 
know your thoughts.

> Support IP ranges (CIDR) in  proxyuser.hosts
> --------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HADOOP-10565
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10565
>             Project: Hadoop Common
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: security
>            Reporter: Benoy Antony
>            Assignee: Benoy Antony
>         Attachments: HADOOP-10565.patch, HADOOP-10565.patch
>
>
> In some use cases, there will be many hosts from which the user can 
> impersonate. 
> This requires specifying many ips  in the XML configuration. 
> It is cumbersome to specify and maintain long list of ips in proxyuser.hosts
> The problem can be solved if we enable proxyuser.hosts to accept ip ranges in 
> CIDR format.
> In addition, the current ip authorization involve a liner scan of the ips and 
> an attempt to do InetAddress.getByName()  for each ip/host. 
> It may be beneficial to group this functionality of ip authorization by 
> looking up  "ip addresses/host names/ip-ranges" into a separate class. This 
> could be reused in other usecases which require similar functionality



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to