I had offline discussions with Joel, Dong and Radai. I agree that we can replace the KafkaPrincipal in Session with the ChannelPrincipal. KafkaPrincipal can be provided as an out of box implementation.
The only gotcha will be users will have to implement there own Authorizer, if they decide to use there own PrincipalBuilder in kafka-acls.sh. I will update the KIP accordingly. Thanks, Mayuresh On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Mayuresh Gharat <gharatmayures...@gmail.com > wrote: > Hi Dong, > > Thanks for the review. Please see the replies inline. > > > 1. I am not sure we need to add the method buildPrincipal(Map<String, ?> > principalConfigs). It seems that user can simply do > principalBuilder.configure(...).buildPrincipal(...) without using that > method. > ---------> I am not sure if I understand the question. > buildPrincipal(Map<String, ?> principalConfigs) will be used to build > individual Principals from the passed in configs. Each Principal can be > different type and the PrincipalBuilder is responsible for handling those > configs correctly and build those Principals. > > 2. Is there any reason specific reason that we should put the > channelPrincipal in KafkaPrincipal class instead of the Session class? If > they work equally well to serve the use-case of this KIP, then it seems > better to put this field in the Session class to avoid changing interface > that needs to be implemented by custom principal. > ---------> Doing this might be backwards incompatible as we need to > preserve the existing behavior of kafka-acls.sh. Also as we have field of > PrincipalType which can be used in future if Kafka decides to support > different Principal types (currently it just says "User"), we might loose > that functionality. > > Thanks, > > Mayuresh > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey Mayuresh, >> >> Thanks for the KIP. I actually like the suggestions by Ismael and Jun. >> Here >> are my comments: >> >> 1. I am not sure we need to add the method buildPrincipal(Map<String, ?> >> principalConfigs). It seems that user can simply do >> principalBuilder.configure(...).buildPrincipal(...) without using that >> method. >> >> 2. Is there any reason specific reason that we should put the >> channelPrincipal in KafkaPrincipal class instead of the Session class? If >> they work equally well to serve the use-case of this KIP, then it seems >> better to put this field in the Session class to avoid changing interface >> that needs to be implemented by custom principal. >> >> Dong >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Mayuresh Gharat < >> gharatmayures...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >> > Hi Rajini, >> > >> > Thanks a lot for the review. Please see the comments inline : >> > >> > It feels like the goal is to expose custom Principal as an >> > opaque object between PrincipalBuilder and Authorizer so that Kafka >> doesn't >> > really need to know anything about additional stuff added for >> > customization. But kafka-acls.sh is expecting a key-value map from which >> > Principal is constructed. This is a breaking change to the >> PrincipalBuilder >> > interface - and I am not sure what it achieves. >> > -----> kafka-acls is a commandline tool where in currently we just >> specify >> > the "names" of the principal that are allowed or denied. >> > The Principal generated by PrincipalBuilder is still opaque and Kafka as >> > such does not need to know the details. >> > The key-value map that is been passed in, will be used specifically by >> the >> > user PrincipalBuilder to create the Principal. The main motivation of >> the >> > KIP is that, the Principal built by the PrincipalBuilder can have other >> > fields apart from the "name", which are ignored currently. Allowing a >> > key-value pair to be passed in will enable the PrincipalBuilder to >> create >> > such type of Principal. >> > >> > 1. A custom Principal is (a) created during authentication using custom >> > PrincipalBuilder (b) checked during authorization using >> Principal.equals() >> > and (c) stored in Zookeeper using Principal.toString(). Is that correct? >> > -----> The authorization will be done as per the user supplied >> Authorizer. >> > As not everyone might be using zookeeper for storing ACLs, its storage >> is >> > again Authorizer implementation dependent. >> > >> > 2. Is the reason for the new parameters in kafka-acls.sh and the >> breaking >> > change in PrincipalBuilder interface to enable users to specify a >> Principal >> > using properties rather than create the String in 1c) themselves? >> > -----> Please see the explanation above. >> > >> > 3. Since the purpose of the new PrincipalBuilder method >> > buildPrincipal(Map<String, >> > ?> principalConfigs) is to create a new Principal from command line >> > parameters, perhaps Properties or Map<String, String> would be more >> > appropriate? >> > -----> Yes we can, but I actually prefer to keep it similar to >> > configure(Map<String, ?> configs) API. >> > >> > >> > Hi Ismael, >> > >> > Thanks a lot for the review. Please see the comments inline. >> > >> > 1. PrincipalBuilder implements Configurable and gets a map of properties >> > via the `configure` method. Do we really need a new `buildPrincipal` >> method >> > given that? >> > ------> The configure() API will actually be used to configure the >> > PrincipalBuilder in the same way as the Authorizer. The buildPrincipal() >> > API will be used by the PrincipalBuilder to build individual principals. >> > Each of these principals can be of different custom types like >> > GroupPrincipals, ServicePrincipals and so on, based on the Map<String, >> ?> >> > principalConfigs provided to the buildPrincipal() API. >> > >> > 2. Jun suggested in the JIRA that it may make sense to pass the >> > `channelPrincipal` as a field in `Session` instead of `KafkaPrincipal`. >> It >> > would be good to understand why this was rejected. >> > -----> Now I understand what Jun meant by "Perhaps, we could extend the >> > Session object with channelPrincipal instead.". Actually thinking more >> on >> > this, there is a PrincipalType in KafkaPrincipal, that was inserted for >> a >> > specific purpose when it was created for the first time, I think. I >> thought >> > that we should preserve it, if its useful for future. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Mayuresh >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Mayuresh, >> > > >> > > Thanks for updating the KIP. A couple of questions: >> > > >> > > 1. PrincipalBuilder implements Configurable and gets a map of >> properties >> > > via the `configure` method. Do we really need a new `buildPrincipal` >> > method >> > > given that? >> > > >> > > 2. Jun suggested in the JIRA that it may make sense to pass the >> > > `channelPrincipal` as a field in `Session` instead of >> `KafkaPrincipal`. >> > It >> > > would be good to understand why this was rejected. >> > > >> > > Ismael >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi Mayuresh, >> > > > >> > > > Thanks for the KIP. A quick comment before I do a more detailed >> > analysis, >> > > > the KIP says: >> > > > >> > > > `This KIP is a pure addition to existing functionality and does not >> > > > include any backward incompatible changes.` >> > > > >> > > > However, the KIP is proposing the addition of a method to the >> > > > PrincipalBuilder pluggable interface, which is not a compatible >> change. >> > > > Existing implementations would no longer compile, for example. It >> would >> > > be >> > > > good to make this clear in the KIP. >> > > > >> > > > Ismael >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Mayuresh Gharat < >> > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Hi all. >> > > >> >> > > >> We created KIP-111 to propose that Kafka should preserve the >> Principal >> > > >> generated by the PrincipalBuilder while processing the request >> > received >> > > on >> > > >> socket channel, on the broker. >> > > >> >> > > >> Please find the KIP wiki in the link >> > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. >> > > action?pageId=67638388 >> > > >> . >> > > >> We would love to hear your comments and suggestions. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Thanks, >> > > >> >> > > >> Mayuresh >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > -Regards, >> > Mayuresh R. Gharat >> > (862) 250-7125 >> > >> > > > > -- > -Regards, > Mayuresh R. Gharat > (862) 250-7125 > -- -Regards, Mayuresh R. Gharat (862) 250-7125
