Hi Bolke, 

This looks like a good addition to tag-based authorization in Ranger. I
will review the patch separately. However, here are a few thoughts.

1. If the client component is tag-aware and client-supplied tags overwrite
admin-supplied tags, audit needs to record this very clearly. This will
avoid any potential confusion about why the authorization decision was
different only for a certain (or certain type) of component.

2. Do the client-supplied tags have to be removed from the access-request?

Thanks,
-Abhay

On 12/4/18, 6:02 AM, "Bolke de Bruin" <bdbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>Ranger assumes that clients are tag unaware. So the Tag Enricher is
>dependent on a resource to tag mapping supplied externally by for example
>Apache Atlas. We found out that having tags available in Ranger can have
>a prohibitive delay. For example, data arrives at the platform and is
>being tagged programatically in Apache Atlas. Atlas then puts the data on
>Kafka and Ranger picks it up. The client (or another) needs to refresh
>its policies before the tagging info becomes available for evaluation.
>Typically, this can be too slow. Kafka introduces a lag and the policy
>refresh also introduces a lag (tested).
>
>If the client is tag aware and it could supply this information to the
>plugin policy evaluation could continue. I have created
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RANGER-2302
><https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RANGER-2302> to track this. I also
>have created an initial patch. The patch allows a client to set the
>special ³RangerTagEnricher.KEY_CLIENT_TAGS² as a value in the access
>request. This will then be picked up by the Tag Enricher. Currently,
>client supplied tags overwrite the system supplied tags. The reason for
>this is that the client might have more recent information. Most likely
>this will need to be checked against the ³updated² field in the tag
>itself, bit that wasn't readily available.
>
>I am looking for feedback to see if we can have this in. Or are there
>other ways to solve this?
>
>Cheers
>Bolke
>
>

Reply via email to