Hi Piyush, Thanks for the KIP for this widely requested feature. A few comments/questions:
1. Some resource names can contain '*'. For example, consumer groups or transactional ids. I am wondering whether we need to restrict characters for these entities or provide a way to distinguish wildcarded resource from a resource containing the wildcard character. 2. I am not sure we want to do wildcarded principals. It feels like a workaround in the absence of user groups. In the longer term, I think groups (without wildcards) would be a better option to configure ACLs for groups of users, rather than building user principals which have common prefixes. In the shorter term, since a configurable PrincipalBuilder is used to build the principal used for authorization, perhaps using the prefix itself as the principal would work (unless different quotas are required for the full user name)? User principal strings take different formats for different security protocols (eg. CN=xxx,O=org,C=UK for SSL) and simple prefixing isn't probably the right grouping in many cases. 3. I am assuming we don't want to do wildcarded hosts in this KIP since wildcard suffix doesn't really work for hosts. 4. It may be worth excluding delegation token ACLs from using prefixed wildcards since it doesn't make much sense. Regards, Rajini On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 2:05 AM, Stephane Maarek < steph...@simplemachines.com.au> wrote: > Hi, thanks for this badly needed feature > > 1) Why introduce two new APIs in authorizer instead of replacing the > implementation for simple ACL authorizer with adding the wildcard > capability? > > 2) is there an impact to performance as now we're evaluating more rules ? A > while back I had evaluated the concept of cached Acl result so swallow the > cost of computing an authorisation cost once and then doing in memory > lookups. CF: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5261 > > 3) is there any need to also extend this to consumer group resources ? > > 4) create topics KIP as recently moved permissions out of Cluster into > Topic. Will wildcard be supported for this action too? > > Thanks a lot for this ! > > On Wed., 2 May 2018, 1:37 am Ted Yu, <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > w.r.t. naming, we can keep wildcard and drop 'prefixed' (or 'suffixed') > > since the use of regex would always start with non-wildcard portion. > > > > Cheers > > > > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Andy Coates <a...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > Hi Piyush, > > > > > > Can you also document in the Compatibility section what would happen > > should > > > the cluster be upgraded, wildcard-suffixed ACLs are added, and then the > > > cluster is rolled back to the previous version. On downgrade the > partial > > > wildcard ACLs will be treated as literals and hence never match > anything. > > > This is fine for ALLOW ACLs, but some might consider this a security > hole > > > if a DENY ACL is ignored, so this needs to be documented, both in the > KIP > > > and the final docs. > > > > > > For some reason I find the term 'prefixed wildcard ACLs' easier to grok > > > than 'wildcard suffixed ACLs'. Probably because in the former the > > > 'wildcard' term comes after the positional adjective, which matches the > > > position of the wildcard char in the resource name, i.e. "some*". It's > > > most likely a person thing, but I thought I'd mention it as naming is > > > important when it comes to making this initiative for users. > > > > > > On 1 May 2018 at 19:57, Andy Coates <a...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Piyush, > > > > > > > > Thanks for raising this KIP - it's very much appreciated. > > > > > > > > I've not had chance to digest it yet, but... > > > > > > > > 1. you might want to add details of how the internals of the > > > > `getMatchingAcls` is implemented. We'd want to make sure the > complexity > > > of > > > > the operation isn't adversely affected. > > > > 2. You might want to be more explicit that the length of a prefix > does > > > not > > > > play a part in the `authorize` call, e.g. given ACLs {DENY, some.*}, > > > {ALLOW, > > > > some.prefix.*}, the longer, i.e. more specific, allow ACL does _not_ > > > > override the more general deny ACL. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > On 1 May 2018 at 16:59, Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Piyush. I appreciated your talk at Kafka Summit and appreciate > the > > > KIP > > > >> -- thanks. > > > >> > > > >> Could you explain these mismatching references? Near the top of the > > KIP > > > >> you refer to these proposed new method signatures: > > > >> > > > >> def getMatchingAcls(resource: Resource): Set[Acl] > > > >> def getMatchingAcls(principal: KafkaPrincipal): Map[Resource, > > Set[Acl]] > > > >> > > > >> But near the bottom of the KIP you refer to different method > > > >> signatures that don't seem to match the above ones: > > > >> > > > >> getMatchingAcls(topicRegex) > > > >> getMatchingAcls(principalRegex) > > > >> > > > >> Ron > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > The KIP was well written. Minor comment on formatting: > > > >> > > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/core/src/ > > > >> > main/scala/kafka/admin/AclCommand.scala > > > >> > to > > > >> > > > > >> > Leave space between the URL and 'to' > > > >> > > > > >> > Can you describe changes for the AdminClient ? > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks > > > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Piyush Vijay < > > piyushvij...@gmail.com> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi all, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I just opened a KIP to add support for wildcard suffixed ACLs. > > This > > > is > > > >> > one > > > >> > > of the feature I talked about in my Kafka summit talk and we > > > promised > > > >> to > > > >> > > upstream it :) > > > >> > > > > > >> > > The details are here - > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > >> > > 290%3A+Support+for+wildcard+suffixed+ACLs > > > >> > > > > > >> > > There is an open question about the way to add the support in > the > > > >> > > AdminClient, which I can discuss here in more detail once > everyone > > > has > > > >> > > taken a first look at the KIP. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Looking forward to discuss the change. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Best, > > > >> > > Piyush Vijay > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
