+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Manikumar <manikumar.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Mayuresh Gharat < > gharatmayures...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Hi Jun, > > > > Thanks a lot for the comments and reviews. > > I agree we should log the username. > > What I meant by creating KafkaPrincipal was, after this KIP we would not > be > > required to create KafkaPrincipal and if we want to maintain the old > > logging, we will have to create it as we do today. > > I will take care that we specify the Principal name in the log. > > > > Thanks again for all the reviews. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mayuresh > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > Hi, Mayuresh, > > > > > > For logging the user name, we could do either way. We just need to make > > > sure the expected user name is logged. Also, currently, we are already > > > creating a KafkaPrincipal on every request. +1 on the latest KIP. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Mayuresh Gharat < > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > > > > > I will mention in the KIP : how this change doesn't affect the > default > > > > authorizer implementation. > > > > > > > > Regarding, Currently, we log the principal name in the request log in > > > > RequestChannel, which has the format of "principalType + SEPARATOR + > > > > name;". > > > > It would be good if we can keep the same convention after this KIP. > One > > > way > > > > to do that is to convert java.security.Principal to KafkaPrincipal > for > > > > logging the requests. > > > > --- > This would mean we have to create a new KafkaPrincipal on each > > > > request. Would it be OK to just specify the name of the principal. > > > > Is there any major reason, we don't want to change the logging > format? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Mayuresh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, Mayuresh, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. A couple of more comments. > > > > > > > > > > 1. Do we convert java.security.Principal to KafkaPrincipal for > > > > > authorization check in SimpleAclAuthorizer? If so, it would be > useful > > > to > > > > > mention that in the wiki so that people can understand how this > > change > > > > > doesn't affect the default authorizer implementation. > > > > > > > > > > 2. Currently, we log the principal name in the request log in > > > > > RequestChannel, which has the format of "principalType + SEPARATOR > + > > > > > name;". > > > > > It would be good if we can keep the same convention after this KIP. > > One > > > > way > > > > > to do that is to convert java.security.Principal to KafkaPrincipal > > for > > > > > logging the requests. > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Mayuresh Gharat < > > > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have updated the KIP. Would you mind taking another look? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Mayuresh > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Mayuresh Gharat < > > > > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure sounds good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mayuresh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, Mani, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Good point on using PrincipalBuilder for SASL. It seems that > > > > > > >> PrincipalBuilder already has access to Authenticator. So, we > > could > > > > > just > > > > > > >> enable that in SaslChannelBuilder. We probably could do that > in > > a > > > > > > separate > > > > > > >> KIP? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Hi, Mayuresh, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> If you don't think there is a concrete use case for using > > > > > > >> PrincipalBuilder in > > > > > > >> kafka-acls.sh, perhaps we could do the simpler approach for > now? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Jun > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Mayuresh Gharat < > > > > > > >> gharatmayures...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > @Manikumar, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Can you give an example how you are planning to use > > > > > PrincipalBuilder? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > @Jun > > > > > > >> > Yes, that is right. To give a brief overview, we just > extract > > > the > > > > > cert > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >> > hand it over to a third party library for creating a > > Principal. > > > So > > > > > we > > > > > > >> > cannot create a Principal from just a string. > > > > > > >> > The main motive behind adding the PrincipalBuilder for > > > > kafk-acls.sh > > > > > > was > > > > > > >> > that someone else (who can generate a Principal from map of > > > > > propertie, > > > > > > >> > <String, String> for example) can use it. > > > > > > >> > As I said, Linkedin is fine with not making any changes to > > > > > > Kafka-acls.sh > > > > > > >> > for now. But we thought that it would be a good improvement > to > > > the > > > > > > tool > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >> > it makes it more flexible and usable. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Let us know your thoughts, if you would like us to make > > > > > kafka-acls.sh > > > > > > >> more > > > > > > >> > flexible and usable and not limited to Authorizer coming out > > of > > > > the > > > > > > box. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Mayuresh > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Manikumar < > > > > > > manikumar.re...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > yes, we can just customize rules to send full principal > > > name. I > > > > > was > > > > > > >> > > just thinking to > > > > > > >> > > use PrinciplaBuilder interface for implementing SASL rules > > > also. > > > > > So > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > >> > > the interface > > > > > > >> > > will be consistent across protocols. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Jun Rao < > j...@confluent.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi, Radai, Mayuresh, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks for the explanation. Good point on a pluggable > > > > authorizer > > > > > > can > > > > > > >> > > > customize how acls are added. However, earlier, Mayuresh > > was > > > > > > saying > > > > > > >> > that > > > > > > >> > > in > > > > > > >> > > > LinkedIn's customized authorizer, it's not possible to > > > create > > > > a > > > > > > >> > principal > > > > > > >> > > > from string. If that's the case, will adding the > principal > > > > > builder > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > >> > > > kafka-acl.sh help? If the principal can be constructed > > from > > > a > > > > > > >> string, > > > > > > >> > > > wouldn't it be simpler to just let kafka-acl.sh do > > > > authorization > > > > > > >> based > > > > > > >> > on > > > > > > >> > > > that string name and not be aware of the principal > > builder? > > > If > > > > > you > > > > > > >> > still > > > > > > >> > > > think there is a need, perhaps you can add a more > concrete > > > use > > > > > > case > > > > > > >> > that > > > > > > >> > > > can't be done otherwise? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi, Mani, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > For SASL, if the authorizer needs the full kerberos > > > principal > > > > > > name, > > > > > > >> > > > currently, the user can just customize " > > > > > > sasl.kerberos.principal.to. > > > > > > >> > > > local.rules" > > > > > > >> > > > to return the full principal name as the name for > > > > authorization, > > > > > > >> right? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Jun > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Mayuresh Gharat < > > > > > > >> > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > @Jun thanks for the comments.Please see the replies > > > inline. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Currently kafka-acl.sh just creates an ACL path in ZK > > with > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > principal > > > > > > >> > > > > name string. > > > > > > >> > > > > ----> Yes, the kafka-acl.sh calls the addAcl() on the > > > > inbuilt > > > > > > >> > > > > SimpleAclAuthorizer which in turn creates an ACL in ZK > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > Principal > > > > > > >> > > > > name string. This is because we supply the > > > > SimpleAclAuthorizer > > > > > > as > > > > > > >> a > > > > > > >> > > > > commandline argument in the Kafka-acls.sh command. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > The authorizer module in the broker reads the > principal > > > name > > > > > > >> > > > > string from the acl path in ZK and creates the > expected > > > > > > >> > KafkaPrincipal > > > > > > >> > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > > matching. As you can see, the expected principal is > > > created > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > broker > > > > > > >> > > > > side, not by the kafka-acl.sh tool. > > > > > > >> > > > > ----> This is considering the fact that the user is > > using > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > SimpleAclAuthorizer on the broker side and not his own > > > > custom > > > > > > >> > > Authorizer. > > > > > > >> > > > > The SimpleAclAuthorizer will take the Principal it > gets > > > from > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > Session > > > > > > >> > > > > class . Currently the Principal is KafkaPrincipal. > This > > > > > > >> > KafkaPrincipal > > > > > > >> > > is > > > > > > >> > > > > generated from the name of the actual channel > Principal, > > > in > > > > > > >> > > SocketServer > > > > > > >> > > > > class when processing completed receives. > > > > > > >> > > > > With this KIP, this will no longer be the case as the > > > > Session > > > > > > >> class > > > > > > >> > > will > > > > > > >> > > > > store a java.security.Principal instead of specific > > > > > > >> KafkaPrincipal. > > > > > > >> > So > > > > > > >> > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > SimpleAclAuthorizer will construct the KafkaPrincipal > > from > > > > the > > > > > > >> > channel > > > > > > >> > > > > Principal it gets from the Session class. > > > > > > >> > > > > User might not want to use the SimpleAclAuthorizer but > > use > > > > > > his/her > > > > > > >> > own > > > > > > >> > > > > custom Authorizer. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > The broker already has the ability to > > > > > > >> > > > > configure PrincipalBuilder. That's why I am not sure > if > > > > there > > > > > > is a > > > > > > >> > need > > > > > > >> > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > > kafka-acl.sh to customize PrincipalBuilder. > > > > > > >> > > > > ----> This is exactly the reason why we want to > propose > > a > > > > > > >> > > > PrincipalBuilder > > > > > > >> > > > > in kafka-acls.sh so that the Principal generated by > the > > > > > > >> > > PrincipalBuilder > > > > > > >> > > > on > > > > > > >> > > > > broker is consistent with that generated while > creating > > > ACLs > > > > > > using > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > >> > > > > kafka-acls.sh command line tool. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > *To summarize the above discussions :* > > > > > > >> > > > > What if we only make the following changes: pass the > > java > > > > > > >> principal > > > > > > >> > in > > > > > > >> > > > > session and in > > > > > > >> > > > > SimpleAuthorizer, construct KafkaPrincipal from java > > > > principal > > > > > > >> name. > > > > > > >> > > Will > > > > > > >> > > > > that work for LinkedIn? > > > > > > >> > > > > ------> Yes, this works for Linkedin as we are not > using > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > kafka-acls.sh > > > > > > >> > > > > tool to create/update/add ACLs, for now. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Do you think there is a use case for a customized > > > authorizer > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > kafka-acl > > > > > > >> > > > > at the > > > > > > >> > > > > same time? If not, it's better not to complicate the > > > > kafka-acl > > > > > > >> api. > > > > > > >> > > > > -----> At Linkedin, we don't use this tool for now. So > > we > > > > are > > > > > > fine > > > > > > >> > with > > > > > > >> > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > minimal change for now. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Initially, our change was minimal, just getting the > > Kafka > > > to > > > > > > >> preserve > > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > channel principal. Since there was a discussion how > > > > > > kafka-acls.sh > > > > > > >> > would > > > > > > >> > > > > work with this change, on the ticket, we designed a > > > detailed > > > > > > >> solution > > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > make this tool generally usable with all sorts of > > > > combinations > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > > > Authorizers and PrincipalBuilders and give more > > > flexibility > > > > to > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > end > > > > > > >> > > > > users. > > > > > > >> > > > > Without the changes proposed for kafka-acls.sh in this > > > KIP, > > > > it > > > > > > >> cannot > > > > > > >> > > be > > > > > > >> > > > > used with a custom Authorizer/PrinipalBuilder but will > > > only > > > > > work > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > >> > > > > SimpleAclAuthorizer. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Although, I would actually like it to work for general > > > > > scenario, > > > > > > >> I am > > > > > > >> > > > fine > > > > > > >> > > > > with separating it under a separate KIP and limit the > > > scope > > > > of > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > >> > > KIP. > > > > > > >> > > > > I will update the KIP accordingly and put this under > > > > rejected > > > > > > >> > > > alternatives > > > > > > >> > > > > and create a new KIP for the Kafka-acls.sh changes. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > @Manikumar > > > > > > >> > > > > Since we are limiting the scope of this KIP by not > > making > > > > any > > > > > > >> changes > > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > kafka-acls.sh, I will cover your concern in a separate > > KIP > > > > > that > > > > > > I > > > > > > >> > will > > > > > > >> > > > put > > > > > > >> > > > > up for kafka-acls.sh. Does that work? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Mayuresh > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:18 AM, radai < > > > > > > >> radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > @jun: > > > > > > >> > > > > > "Currently kafka-acl.sh just creates an ACL path in > ZK > > > > with > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > name string" - yes, but not directly. all it > actually > > > does > > > > > it > > > > > > >> > spin-up > > > > > > >> > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > Authorizer and call Authorizer.addAcl() on it. > > > > > > >> > > > > > the vanilla Authorizer goes to ZK. > > > > > > >> > > > > > but generally speaking, users can plug in their own > > > > > > Authorizers > > > > > > >> > (that > > > > > > >> > > > can > > > > > > >> > > > > > store/load ACLs to/from wherever). > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it would be nice if users who customize Authorizers > > (and > > > > > > >> > > > > PrincipalBuilders) > > > > > > >> > > > > > did not immediately lose the ability to use > > kafka-acl.sh > > > > > with > > > > > > >> their > > > > > > >> > > new > > > > > > >> > > > > > Authorizers. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Manikumar < > > > > > > >> > > manikumar.re...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sorry, I am late to this discussion. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > PrincipalBuilder is only used for SSL Protocol. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > For SASL, we use "sasl.kerberos.principal.to. > > > > local.rules" > > > > > > >> config > > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > map > > > > > > >> > > > > > > SASL principal names to short names. To make it > > > > > consistent, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Do we also need to pass the SASL full principal > name > > > to > > > > > > >> > authorizer > > > > > > >> > > ? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > We may need to use PrincipalBuilder for mapping > SASL > > > > > names. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Related JIRA is here: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2854 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Jun Rao < > > > > > j...@confluent.io> > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi, Radai, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Currently kafka-acl.sh just creates an ACL path > in > > > ZK > > > > > with > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > > > > principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > name string. The authorizer module in the broker > > > reads > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > name > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > string from the acl path in ZK and creates the > > > > expected > > > > > > >> > > > > KafkaPrincipal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > matching. As you can see, the expected principal > > is > > > > > > created > > > > > > >> on > > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > broker > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > side, not by the kafka-acl.sh tool. The broker > > > already > > > > > has > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > > > ability > > > > > > >> > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > configure PrincipalBuilder. That's why I am not > > sure > > > > if > > > > > > >> there > > > > > > >> > is > > > > > > >> > > a > > > > > > >> > > > > need > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > kafka-acl.sh to customize PrincipalBuilder. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:01 PM, radai < > > > > > > >> > > radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > if i understand correctly, kafka-acls.sh spins > > up > > > an > > > > > > >> instance > > > > > > >> > > of > > > > > > >> > > > > (the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > custom, in our case) Authorizer, and calls > > things > > > > like > > > > > > >> > > > > addAcls(acls: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Set[Acl], resource: Resource) on it, which are > > > > defined > > > > > > in > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > interface, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > hence expected to be "extensible". > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (side note: if Authorizer and PrincipalBuilder > > are > > > > > > >> defined as > > > > > > >> > > > > > > extensible > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > interfaces, why doesnt class Acl, which is in > > the > > > > > > >> signature > > > > > > >> > for > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Authorizer > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > calls, use java.security.Principal?) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > we would like to be able to use the standard > > > > kafka-acl > > > > > > >> > command > > > > > > >> > > > line > > > > > > >> > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > defining ACLs even when replacing the vanilla > > > > > Authorizer > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > PrincipalBuilder (even though we have a > > management > > > > UI > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > these > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > operations > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > within linkedin) - simply because thats the > > > correct > > > > > > thing > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > do > > > > > > >> > > > > from > > > > > > >> > > > > > an > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > extensibility point of view. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Jun Rao < > > > > > > >> j...@confluent.io> > > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi, Mayuresh, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I seems to me that there are two common use > > > cases > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > > authorizer. > > > > > > >> > > > > > (1) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Use > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > the default SimpleAuthorizer and the > kafka-acl > > > to > > > > do > > > > > > >> > > > > authorization. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > (2) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Use > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > a customized authorizer and an external tool > > for > > > > > > >> > > authorization. > > > > > > >> > > > > Do > > > > > > >> > > > > > > you > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > think there is a use case for a customized > > > > > authorizer > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >> > > > > kafka-acl > > > > > > >> > > > > > > at > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > same time? If not, it's better not to > > complicate > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > kafka-acl > > > > > > >> > > > > api. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Mayuresh > > > Gharat > > > > < > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the review and comments. Please > > > find > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > replies > > > > > > >> > > > > > inline > > > > > > >> > > > > > > : > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > This is so that in the future, we can > extend > > > to > > > > > > types > > > > > > >> > like > > > > > > >> > > > > group. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ---> Yep, I did think the same. But since > > the > > > > > > >> > SocketServer > > > > > > >> > > > was > > > > > > >> > > > > > > always > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > creating User type, it wasn't actually > used. > > > If > > > > we > > > > > > go > > > > > > >> > ahead > > > > > > >> > > > > with > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this KIP, we will give this power of > > creating > > > > > > >> different > > > > > > >> > > > > Principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > types > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the PrincipalBuilder (which users can > define > > > > there > > > > > > >> own). > > > > > > >> > In > > > > > > >> > > > > that > > > > > > >> > > > > > > way > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > will not have to deal with handling this. > So > > > the > > > > > > >> > Principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > building > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Authorization will be opaque to Kafka > which > > > > seems > > > > > > >> like an > > > > > > >> > > > > > expected > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, normally, the configurations you > > specify > > > > for > > > > > > >> > plug-ins > > > > > > >> > > > > refer > > > > > > >> > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > needed to construct the plug-in object. > So, > > > it's > > > > > > kind > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > >> > > > weird > > > > > > >> > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > use > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to call a method. For example, why can't > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > principalBuilderService.rest. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > url > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > be passed in through the configure() > method > > > and > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > implementation > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > can > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > that to build principal. This way, there > is > > > > only a > > > > > > >> single > > > > > > >> > > > > method > > > > > > >> > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > compute > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the principal in a consistent way in the > > > broker > > > > > and > > > > > > in > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > kafka-acl > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > tool. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ----> We can do that as well. But since > the > > > rest > > > > > url > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > >> > not > > > > > > >> > > > > > related > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Principal, it seems out of place to me to > > pass > > > > it > > > > > > >> every > > > > > > >> > > time > > > > > > >> > > > we > > > > > > >> > > > > > > have > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > create a Principal. I should replace > > > > > > >> "principalConfigs" > > > > > > >> > > with > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > "principalProperties". > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I was trying to differentiate the > > > > > configs/properties > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > >> > > are > > > > > > >> > > > > > used > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > create the PrincipalBuilder class and the > > > > > > >> > > > Principal/Principals > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > itself. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > For LinkedIn's use case, do you actually > use > > > the > > > > > > >> > kafka-acl > > > > > > >> > > > > tool? > > > > > > >> > > > > > My > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understanding is that LinkedIn does > > > > authorization > > > > > > >> through > > > > > > >> > > an > > > > > > >> > > > > > > external > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > tool. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ----> For Linkedin's use case we don't > > > actually > > > > > use > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > > > kafka-acl > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > tool > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > right now. As per the discussion that we > had > > > on > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > jira/browse/KAFKA-4454, > > > > > > we > > > > > > >> > > thought > > > > > > >> > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > > > > > > it > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > be good to make kafka-acl tool changes, to > > > make > > > > it > > > > > > >> > flexible > > > > > > >> > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > > > we > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > even able to use it in future. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems it's simpler if kafka-acl doesn't > > to > > > > need > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > understand > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > principal builder. The tool does > > authorization > > > > > based > > > > > > >> on a > > > > > > >> > > > > string > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > name, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > which is expected to match the principal > > name. > > > > > So, I > > > > > > >> am > > > > > > >> > > > > wondering > > > > > > >> > > > > > > why > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > tool needs to know the principal builder. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ----> If we don't make this change, I am > not > > > > sure > > > > > > how > > > > > > >> > > > > clients/end > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > users > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > will be able to use this tool if they have > > > there > > > > > own > > > > > > >> > > > Authorizer > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Authorization based on Principal, that has > > > more > > > > > > >> > information > > > > > > >> > > > > apart > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > from > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > name > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > and type. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > What if we only make the following > changes: > > > pass > > > > > the > > > > > > >> java > > > > > > >> > > > > > principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > session and in > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > SimpleAuthorizer, construct KafkaPrincipal > > > from > > > > > java > > > > > > >> > > > principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > name. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Will > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > that work for LinkedIn? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ----> This can work for Linkedin but as > > > > explained > > > > > > >> above, > > > > > > >> > it > > > > > > >> > > > > does > > > > > > >> > > > > > > not > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > seem > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > like a complete design from open source > > point > > > of > > > > > > view. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Mayuresh > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Jun Rao < > > > > > > >> > j...@confluent.io > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Mayuresh, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. A few more > comments > > > > below. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Mayuresh > > > > Gharat > > > > > < > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the review. Please find the > > > > > responses > > > > > > >> > > inline. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. It seems the problem that you are > > > trying > > > > to > > > > > > >> > address > > > > > > >> > > is > > > > > > >> > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > java > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > principal returned from KafkaChannel > may > > > > have > > > > > > >> > > additional > > > > > > >> > > > > > fields > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > name > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > that are needed during authorization. > > Have > > > > you > > > > > > >> > > > considered a > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > customized > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > PrincipleBuilder that extracts all > > needed > > > > > fields > > > > > > >> from > > > > > > >> > > > java > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > squeezes them as a json in the name of > > the > > > > > > >> returned > > > > > > >> > > > > > principal? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Then, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > authorizer can just parse the json and > > > > extract > > > > > > >> needed > > > > > > >> > > > > fields. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---> Yes we had thought about this. We > > > use a > > > > > > third > > > > > > >> > > party > > > > > > >> > > > > > > library > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > takes > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > in the passed in cert and creates the > > > > > Principal. > > > > > > >> This > > > > > > >> > > > > > Principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > used by the library to make the > decision > > > > > > >> (ALLOW/DENY) > > > > > > >> > > > when > > > > > > >> > > > > we > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > call > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Authorizer. It does not have an > API > > to > > > > > > create > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > > > > Principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > String. If it did support, still we > > would > > > > have > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > >> > > > aware > > > > > > >> > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > internal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > details of the library, like the field > > > > values > > > > > it > > > > > > >> > > creates > > > > > > >> > > > > from > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > certs, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > defaults and so on. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Could you explain how the default > > > > > authorizer > > > > > > >> works > > > > > > >> > > > now? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Currently, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > code just compares the two principal > > > > objects. > > > > > > Are > > > > > > >> we > > > > > > >> > > > > > converting > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > java > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > principal to a KafkaPrincipal there? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---> The SimpleAclAuthorizer currently > > > > expects > > > > > > >> that, > > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > fetches from the Session object is an > > > > instance > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > > > > > KafkaPrincipal. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uses it compare with the > KafkaPrincipal > > > > > > extracted > > > > > > >> > from > > > > > > >> > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > stored > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > ACLs. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > In > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > this case, we can construct the > > > > KafkaPrincipal > > > > > > >> object > > > > > > >> > > on > > > > > > >> > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > fly > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > using > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the name of the Principal as follows : > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > *val principal = session.principal* > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > *val kafkaPrincipal = new > > > > > > >> > > KafkaPrincipal(KafkaPrincipal. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > USER_TYPE, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > principal.getName)* > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I was also planning to get rid of the > > > > > > >> principalType > > > > > > >> > > field > > > > > > >> > > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > KafkaPrincipal as > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it is always set to *"*User*"* in the > > > > > > SocketServer > > > > > > >> > > > > currently. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > After > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP, it will no longer be used in > > > > > SocketServer. > > > > > > >> But > > > > > > >> > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > maintain > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > backwards > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility of kafka-acls.sh, I > > > preserved > > > > > it. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > This is so that in the future, we can > > extend > > > > to > > > > > > >> types > > > > > > >> > > like > > > > > > >> > > > > > group. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Do we need to add the following > > method > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > > > PrincipalBuilder? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > configs > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > are already passed in through > > configure() > > > > and > > > > > an > > > > > > >> > > > > > implementation > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > can > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > cache > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it and use it in buildPrincipal(). > It's > > > also > > > > > not > > > > > > >> > clear > > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > me > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > where > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > call > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the new and the old method, and > whether > > > both > > > > > > will > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > >> > > > called > > > > > > >> > > > > > or > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > one > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will be called. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Principal buildPrincipal(Map<String, > ?> > > > > > > >> > > > principalConfigs); > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---> My thought was that the > configure() > > > > > method > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > >> > be > > > > > > >> > > > > used > > > > > > >> > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > build > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > PrincipalBuilder class object itself. > It > > > > > follows > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > same > > > > > > >> > > > > way > > > > > > >> > > > > > > as > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Authorizer > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > gets configured. The > > > > > buildPrincipal(Map<String, > > > > > > ?> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > principalConfigs) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > be used to build individual > principals. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me give an example, with the > > > > > kafka-acls.sh : > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - bin/kafka-acls.sh > > --principalBuilder > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > userDefinedPackage.kafka. > > > > > > >> > security.PrincipalBuilder > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --principalBuilder-properties > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > principalBuilderService.rest.u > rl=URL > > > > > > >> > --authorizer > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > kafka.security.auth. > > > SimpleAclAuthorizer > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > --authorizer-properties > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > zookeeper.connect=localhost:2181 > > --add > > > > > > >> > > > > --allow-principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name=bob > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type=USER_PRINCIPAL > --allow-principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > name=ALPHA-GAMMA-SERVICE > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type=SERVICE_PRINCIPAL > --allow-hosts > > > > > > >> Host1,Host2 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > --operations > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Read,Write > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --topic Test-topic > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. *userDefinedPackage.kafka. > > > > > > >> > > > > > security.PrincipalBuilder* > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > defined PrincipalBuilder class. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. > *principalBuilderService.rest. > > > > > url=URL* > > > > > > >> can > > > > > > >> > > be a > > > > > > >> > > > > > > remote > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > service > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > that provides you an HTTP > endpoint > > > > which > > > > > > >> takes > > > > > > >> > > in a > > > > > > >> > > > > set > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > parameters and > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > provides you with the Principal. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. *name=bob > type=USER_PRINCIPAL* > > > can > > > > be > > > > > > >> used > > > > > > >> > by > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > PrincipalBuilder > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > create UserPrincipal with name > as > > > bob > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. *name=ALPHA-GAMMA-SERVICE > > > > > > >> > > type=SERVICE_PRINCIPAL > > > > > > >> > > > > > *can > > > > > > >> > > > > > > be > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > PrincipalBuilder to create a > > > > > > >> ServicePrincipal > > > > > > >> > > with > > > > > > >> > > > > name > > > > > > >> > > > > > > as > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ALPHA-GAMMA-SERVICE. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - This seems more flexible and > > > intuitive > > > > to > > > > > > me > > > > > > >> > from > > > > > > >> > > > end > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user's > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, normally, the configurations you > > > specify > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > plug-ins > > > > > > >> > > > > > refer > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > needed to construct the plug-in object. > > So, > > > > it's > > > > > > >> kind > > > > > > >> > of > > > > > > >> > > > > weird > > > > > > >> > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > use > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to call a method. For example, why can't > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > principalBuilderService.rest. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > url > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > be passed in through the configure() > > method > > > > and > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > implementation > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > that to build principal. This way, there > > is > > > > > only a > > > > > > >> > single > > > > > > >> > > > > > method > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > compute > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the principal in a consistent way in the > > > > broker > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > kafka-acl > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > tool. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > For LinkedIn's use case, do you actually > > use > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > kafka-acl > > > > > > >> > > > > > tool? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > My > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > understanding is that LinkedIn does > > > > > authorization > > > > > > >> > through > > > > > > >> > > > an > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > external > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > tool. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems it's simpler if kafka-acl > doesn't > > > to > > > > > need > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > principal builder. The tool does > > > authorization > > > > > > based > > > > > > >> > on a > > > > > > >> > > > > > string > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > which is expected to match the principal > > > name. > > > > > So, > > > > > > >> I am > > > > > > >> > > > > > wondering > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > why > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > tool needs to know the principal > builder. > > > What > > > > > if > > > > > > we > > > > > > >> > only > > > > > > >> > > > > make > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > following changes: pass the java > principal > > > in > > > > > > >> session > > > > > > >> > and > > > > > > >> > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > SimpleAuthorizer, construct > KafkaPrincipal > > > > from > > > > > > java > > > > > > >> > > > > principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > name. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Will > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > that work for LinkedIn? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Principal buildPrincipal(Map<String, > ?> > > > > > > >> > > principalConfigs) > > > > > > >> > > > > > will > > > > > > >> > > > > > > be > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > called > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > from the commandline client > > kafka-acls.sh > > > > > while > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > other > > > > > > >> > > > > API > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > called > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > at runtime when Kafka receives a > client > > > > > request > > > > > > >> over > > > > > > >> > > > > request > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > channel. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. The KIP has "If users use there > > custom > > > > > > >> > > > PrincipalBuilder, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > they > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to implement there custom Authorizer > as > > > the > > > > > out > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > box > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Authorizer > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka provides uses KafkaPrincipal." > > This > > > is > > > > > not > > > > > > >> > ideal > > > > > > >> > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > users. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could we avoid that? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---> Yes, this is possible to avoid if > > we > > > do > > > > > > >> point 2. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mayuresh > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Jun > Rao > > < > > > > > > >> > > > j...@confluent.io> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Mayuresh, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. A few comments > > > below. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. It seems the problem that you are > > > > trying > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > address > > > > > > >> > > > is > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > java > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > principal returned from KafkaChannel > > may > > > > > have > > > > > > >> > > > additional > > > > > > >> > > > > > > fields > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > name > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that are needed during > authorization. > > > Have > > > > > you > > > > > > >> > > > > considered a > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > customized > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PrincipleBuilder that extracts all > > > needed > > > > > > fields > > > > > > >> > from > > > > > > >> > > > > java > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > principal > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > squeezes them as a json in the name > of > > > the > > > > > > >> returned > > > > > > >> > > > > > > principal? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Then, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > authorizer can just parse the json > and > > > > > extract > > > > > > >> > needed > > > > > > >> > > > > > fields. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Could you explain how the default > > > > > > authorizer > > > > > > >> > works > > > > > > >> > > > > now? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Currently, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > code just compares the two principal > > > > > objects. > > > > > > >> Are > > > > > > >> > we > > > > > > >> > > > > > > converting > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > java > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > principal to a KafkaPrincipal there? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Do we need to add the following > > > method > > > > in > > > > > > >> > > > > > > PrincipalBuilder? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > configs > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are already passed in through > > > configure() > > > > > and > > > > > > an > > > > > > >> > > > > > > implementation > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > cache > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it and use it in buildPrincipal(). > > It's > > > > also > > > > > > not > > > > > > >> > > clear > > > > > > >> > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > > me > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > where > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > call > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the new and the old method, and > > whether > > > > both > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > >> > be > > > > > > >> > > > > called > > > > > > >> > > > > > > or > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will be called. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Principal buildPrincipal(Map<String, > > ?> > > > > > > >> > > > > principalConfigs); > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. The KIP has "If users use there > > > custom > > > > > > >> > > > > PrincipalBuilder, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > they > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to implement there custom Authorizer > > as > > > > the > > > > > > out > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > >> > > box > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Authorizer > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka provides uses KafkaPrincipal." > > > This > > > > is > > > > > > not > > > > > > >> > > ideal > > > > > > >> > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > existing > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > users. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could we avoid that? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:25 AM, > > > Mayuresh > > > > > > >> Gharat < > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that there is no further > > > > concern > > > > > > with > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > KIP-111. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > At > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > point > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we would like to start the voting > > > > process. > > > > > > The > > > > > > >> > KIP > > > > > > >> > > > can > > > > > > >> > > > > be > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > found > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/ > > > > > > >> > confluence/pages/viewpage > > > > > > >> > > . > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > action?pageId=67638388 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mayuresh > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -Regards, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mayuresh R. Gharat > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > (862) 250-7125 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -Regards, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Mayuresh R. Gharat > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > (862) 250-7125 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > -- > > > > > > >> > > > > -Regards, > > > > > > >> > > > > Mayuresh R. Gharat > > > > > > >> > > > > (862) 250-7125 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > -- > > > > > > >> > -Regards, > > > > > > >> > Mayuresh R. Gharat > > > > > > >> > (862) 250-7125 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > -Regards, > > > > > > > Mayuresh R. Gharat > > > > > > > (862) 250-7125 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > -Regards, > > > > > > Mayuresh R. Gharat > > > > > > (862) 250-7125 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -Regards, > > > > Mayuresh R. Gharat > > > > (862) 250-7125 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -Regards, > > Mayuresh R. Gharat > > (862) 250-7125 > > >
