I am available any days. On Wed, Apr 14, 2021, 9:32 AM Daniel Imberman <daniel.imber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone! > > Would people be available around 8AM/9AM PST some point next week? I’m in > PST and Ian is UTC+1 so would be great to find a timezone that accomodates > everyone. > > Daniel > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 6:26 AM, Ryan Hatter <ryannhat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I’d also like to be added please :) > > On Apr 13, 2021, at 21:27, Xinbin Huang <bin.huan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Daniel & Ian, > > I am also interested in the idea of a serialization representation that > can be executed by workers directly. Can you also add me to the call? > > Thanks > Bin > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:49 PM Ian Buss <ianjb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Daniel, >> >> Thanks for your warm welcome and quick response and the advice on >> providers! Will certainly check out the examples you sent. >> >> 1. An "airflow register" command definitely sounds promising, would love >> to collaborate on an AIP there so let's set something up. >> 2. We use KubernetesExecutor exclusively as well. We've noticed >> significant additional load on the metadata DB as we scale up task pods so >> I've also thought about an API-based approach. Such an API could also open >> up the possibility of per-task security tokens which are injected by the >> scheduler, which should improve the security of such a system. Food for >> thought at least. I will start putting some of these thoughts down on paper >> in a sharable format. >> >> Ian >> >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 7:46 PM Daniel Imberman < >> daniel.imber...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ian, >>> >>> >>> Firstly, welcome to the Airflow community :). I'm glad to hear you've >>> had a positive experience so far. It's great to hear that you want to >>> contribute back, and I think that multi-tenancy/DAG isolation is a pretty >>> fantastic project for the community as a whole (a lot of things are are >>> things we want but are limited by hours in a day). >>> >>> >>> 1. I've personally been kicking around some ideas lately about an >>> "airflow register" command that would write the DAG into the metadata DB in >>> a way that could be "gettable" by the workers via the API. This work is >>> very early. I'd love to get some help on it. Perhaps we can set up a zoom >>> chat to discuss drafting an AIP? >>> >>> >>> 2. Limiting worker access to the DB is not only good security practice; >>> it also opens up the door to a lot of valuable features. This feature would >>> be especially close to my heart as it would make the KubernetesExecutor >>> significantly more efficient. It should be possible to set up a system >>> where the workers only ever speak to an API server and never need to touch >>> the DB. >>> >>> >>> 3. This is not something I personally have insight into, but I think it >>> sounds like a good idea. >>> >>> >>> Finally, addressing your question about a Cloudera provider. If >>> anything, it would probably give the provider _more_ legitimacy if you >>> hosted it under the Cloudera GitHub org (we very purposely created the >>> provider packages with this workflow in mind). There are multiple places >>> where we can work to surface this provider so it is easy to find and use. >>> >>> >>> Astronomer has a pretty good sample provider here >>> <https://github.com/astronomer/airflow-provider-sample>. One example of >>> it running in the wild is the Great Expectations provider here >>> <https://github.com/great-expectations/airflow-provider-great-expectations>. >>> I'd also be glad to get you in contact with people who have built providers >>> in the past to help you with that process. >>> >>> >>> Looking forward to seeing some of these things come to fruition! >>> >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:43 AM, Ian Buss <ianjb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> First a quick introduction: I'm an engineer with Cloudera working on our >>> Data Engineering product (CDE). Airflow is working great for us so far. >>> We've been looking into how we can enhance the multi-tenancy story of >>> Apache Airflow as we currently deploy it. We have the following areas which >>> we'd like (with community consensus) to work on and contribute back to >>> Apache Airflow to enhance the isolation between tenants in a single Airflow >>> deployment. >>> >>> 1. Isolating code execution and parsing of DAG files. At the moment, DAG >>> files are parsed in a few locations in Airflow, including the scheduler and >>> in tasks. There is already the concept of DAG serialization (and we're >>> using that for the web component) but we'd be interested to see if we can >>> sandbox the execution of arbitrary user code to a locked down >>> process/container without full access to the metadata DB and connection >>> secrets etc. The idea would be to parse and serialize the DAG in this >>> isolated container and pass back a serialized representation for >>> persistence in the DB. Has anyone explored this idea? >>> >>> 2. Limiting task access to the metadata DB. It would be great if we >>> could remove the requirement for tasks to have full access to the metadata >>> DB and to report task status in a different (but still scalable) way. We'd >>> need to tackle access or injection of connection, variable and xcom data as >>> well for each task naturally. >>> >>> 3. Finer-grained access controls on connection secrets. Right now, >>> although there are nice at-rest encryption options with Fernet or Vault, >>> IIUC any DAG can access any connection (and thus any secret). Since the >>> "run as" user is largely defined within the DAG and its tasks, this is >>> challenging for a multi-tenant environment (see caveat below) >>> >>> Caveat: It's definitely noted that to some extent we should assume that >>> an Airflow deployment is a "trusted" environment and that best practices >>> such as git+PR workflows are the gold standard and that any malicious code >>> and dependencies should be identified through this process. Also that there >>> is a clear admin role for connection management etc. >>> >>> We have some ideas informally sketched out as to how to address the >>> above but would be keen to hear the community opinion on this and to see if >>> anyone is keen to collaborate on designs and implementation, or to hear if >>> anything is already in the works. In particular I noticed that the very >>> first improvement proposal (AIP-1) addresses much of the above :). However, >>> it seems fairly dormant at the moment. >>> >>> One other question: we have a provider (operators and hooks) for >>> interacting with Cloudera components that we'd like to contribute to the >>> project. The provider FAQs indicate that new provider contributions are >>> still welcome in the project in 2.x, is that accurate? >>> >>> Thanks in advance! >>> >>> Ian >>> >>>
