Yes, along with ERROR level logging when falling back to specific host/ip
or localhost variants.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 11:48 PM Philip Zampino <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sure, but I'm also going to implement the following for the default
> behavior (when the DEFAULT value is specified for the whitelist property):
>
>
>    1. Attempt to determine the domain from the X-Forwarded-Host header
> value
>    2. If domain could not be determined, attempt to determine the domain
>    from the InetAddress.getLocalHost().getCanonicalHostName() value
>    3. If domain could not be determined, attempt to determine the domain
>    from the requested host name
>    4. If the domain could be determined from any of these sources, then the
>    default whitelist will be based on that domain
>    5. If the domain cannot be determined
>    a. If the requested host name is NOT a variant of localhost, then the
>    whitelist will be restricted to that specific host name
>    b. Otherwise, the localhost whitelist will be the default
>
> Does that sound like a good strategy?
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:15 PM larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, does that sound appropriate to you?
> > If the LDAP config in gateway-site.xml gets updated to product the
> > whitelist would be in the same place.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Philip Zampino <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am working on a solution for the ip address being treated as a
> hostname
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 6:24 PM larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Playing around a bit more, I noticed that there is nondeterministic
> > > > behavior of the default whitelist feature.
> > > > Especially on macs - since the hostname ends up being any number of
> > > things.
> > > > I have noticed the following things when there is no explicit
> whitelist
> > > > configured:
> > > >
> > > > * ip address based whitelist being derived which is treated like a
> > domain
> > > > * localhost is not supported out of the box unless the logic is
> unable
> > to
> > > > determine a domain
> > > > * sometimes my host is HW14155.home and sometimes it is
> new-host-5.home
> > > for
> > > > some reason
> > > >
> > > > Given that all of our samples and docs assume localhost and OOTB we
> are
> > > > setup for DEMO LDAP server, I propose that we at least add localhost
> > back
> > > > for OOTB.
> > > > Ip address handling may be worth tackling as well but only if we can
> do
> > > it
> > > > in a day.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 6:12 PM, larry mccay <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Awesome - just checked it out and I will kick off a new build
> > shortly!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Sandeep Moré <
> [email protected]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hello Larry,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I committed the fix to master and v1.1.0, it is under the JIRA
> > > KNOX-1391
> > > > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1391>.
> > > > >> we should be good to to cut the RC, provided there are no more
> > issues
> > > !
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks !
> > > > >> Sandeep
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:25 PM larry mccay <
> [email protected]>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Awesome, @sandeep!
> > > > >> > I'll keep an eye out.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Once that lands, you can bump this thread and I'll cut the RC.
> > > > >> > Obviously, we will need it in both master and v1.1.0 branches.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Sandeep Moré <
> > > [email protected]>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Hello Larry,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Yes, I have seen those exceptions, they seem to be happening
> > > fairly
> > > > >> > > consistently and only for KnoxSSO redirects when trying to
> > access
> > > > >> admin
> > > > >> > UI,
> > > > >> > > I am taking a look at them as we speak, will open up a JIRA
> for
> > it
> > > > as
> > > > >> > well.
> > > > >> > > It would be good if we can get it in, I will try to get the
> fix
> > > out
> > > > as
> > > > >> > soon
> > > > >> > > as I can.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Best,
> > > > >> > > Sandeep
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:15 PM larry mccay <
> [email protected]>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > @Phil, I see a couple commits land that seem to address the
> > NPE.
> > > > >> > > > Is that correct?
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I have also seen an IllegalStateException during redirect
> from
> > > > >> Admin UI
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > KnoxSSO.
> > > > >> > > > Has anyone seen this and/or is working on it - is it related
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > >> > NPE?
> > > > >> > > > I don't think it is since I see it more frequently and not
> > > always
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > NPEs.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I'd like to get a new RC cut by end of the week, if
> possible.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 7:57 PM, larry mccay <
> > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Agreed, Phil.
> > > > >> > > > > I have cut an RC but we need to address this first.  I'll
> > hold
> > > > >> off on
> > > > >> > > > > announcing it.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 11:36 AM Phil Zampino <
> > > > [email protected]>
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> During some testing of the proposed 1.1.0 code, I've
> > > discovered
> > > > >> some
> > > > >> > > > NPEs
> > > > >> > > > >> in filters (e.g., AclsAuthorizationFilter,
> > > > >> > HadoopGroupProviderFilter),
> > > > >> > > > >> which are concerning.
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >> I've committed a change to address the
> > > AclsAuthorizationFilter,
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> > > > seeing
> > > > >> > > > >> similar behavior for the HadoopGroupProviderFilter has
> > > > increased
> > > > >> my
> > > > >> > > > >> concern
> > > > >> > > > >> that there may be a more fundamental problem.
> > > > >> > > > >> In both cases, it seems that the filters are being
> invoked
> > > > prior
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > (or
> > > > >> > > > >> during) their respective init() methods have been
> invoked.
> > > > Thus,
> > > > >> > > members
> > > > >> > > > >> which should be initialized in the init() method are not
> > yet
> > > > >> > > > initialized.
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >> This can be consistently reproduced, though it is a bit
> of
> > a
> > > > >> pain:
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >>    - Install Knox (‘ant install-test-home’, or just unzip
> > > > >> > > > knox-1.1.0.zip)
> > > > >> > > > >>    - Start the gateway
> > > > >> > > > >>    - Access the Admin UI
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >> Note that the latest 1.1.0 source has a *fix* for the
> > > > >> > > > >> AclsAuthorizationFilter NPE, but master does not yet have
> > > this
> > > > >> > change.
> > > > >> > > > >> This
> > > > >> > > > >> is important because that change effectively hides the
> > issue.
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >> I think we should determine what's happening with this
> > before
> > > > >> > > > >> producing/testing a release candidate.
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:57 PM larry mccay <
> > > > [email protected]>
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >> > All -
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > Sorry for the delay on this topic.
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > We are going to start of this planning thread with ~85
> > > > >> Unresolved
> > > > >> > > > JIRAs
> > > > >> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > > >> > either 1.1.0 or 0.15.0 fixVersion.
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > project = KNOX AND resolution = Unresolved AND
> fixVersion
> > > in
> > > > >> > (1.1.0,
> > > > >> > > > >> > 0.15.0) ORDER BY  priority DESC, updated DESC
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > I will spend some time migrating all 0.15.0 to 1.1.0 to
> > > begin
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > and
> > > > >> > > > >> then
> > > > >> > > > >> > we will need to go through and see what is already
> taken
> > > care
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > or
> > > > >> > > > can
> > > > >> > > > >> > wait for a 1.2.0 or later.
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > I also have a couple KIPs in mind to target larger
> > > > >> features/themes
> > > > >> > > for
> > > > >> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > > >> > release.
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > Off the top of my head:
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > * I think we need to address some cloud specific
> usecases
> > > and
> > > > >> plan
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > >> > provide a KIP for that. Hybrid cloud/federated knox
> > > > instances,
> > > > >> > Azure
> > > > >> > > > AD
> > > > >> > > > >> > integration, ID mapping from Hadoop user to IAM
> > > users/roles,
> > > > >> etc.
> > > > >> > > > >> Perhaps
> > > > >> > > > >> > some CASB-like features if they make sense.
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > * I also think we need one for articulating a
> reasonable
> > > flow
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > >> Logout in
> > > > >> > > > >> > KnoxSSO. There are a lot of little nuances to logout
> > across
> > > > >> > multiple
> > > > >> > > > >> apps
> > > > >> > > > >> > and between different IDPs. This will require some
> > > > discussion.
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > * Another thing that has been tugging at my interest
> has
> > > been
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > fact
> > > > >> > > > >> that
> > > > >> > > > >> > we may be able provide some common libraries to help
> > > > ecosystem
> > > > >> > > > >> applications
> > > > >> > > > >> > uptake the trusted proxy pattern and KnoxSSO.
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > Anyway, these are my initial thoughts, please feel free
> > to
> > > > >> raise
> > > > >> > > > >> additional
> > > > >> > > > >> > ideas/themes for KIPs, etc.
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > I was thinking that we could try and target an end of
> > March
> > > > or
> > > > >> Mid
> > > > >> > > > April
> > > > >> > > > >> > 1.1.0 release.
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > Thoughts?
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > --larry
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to