-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/73094/#review222369
-----------------------------------------------------------




agents-common/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/plugin/policyevaluator/RangerOptimizedPolicyEvaluator.java
Lines 297 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/73094/#comment311430>

    isAdminAccess won't be true if isAccessTypeAny is. For better readability, 
consider following:
    
     ret = isAccessTypeAny || accessPerms.contains(accessType);
     
     if (!ret) {
       if (StringUtils.equals(accessType, RangerPolicyEngine.ADMIN_ACCESS)) {
         ret = delegateAdmin;
       }
     }



security-admin/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/biz/RangerPolicyAdminImpl.java
Line 294 (original), 306 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/73094/#comment311431>

    revert this change - since the method name hasn't changed?



security-admin/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/rest/ServiceREST.java
Line 3654 (original), 3706 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/73094/#comment311429>

    Consider using serviceDef from policyAdmin.policyEngine. retrieving in each 
call to hasAdminAccess() will be expensive and unnecessary. Perhaps the logic 
to get access-types from policy (getAllAccessTypes()) can be moved inside 
implementation of RangerPolicyAdmin.isDelegatedAdminAccessAllowed()



security-admin/src/test/java/org/apache/ranger/biz/TestPolicyDb.java
Line 141 (original), 141 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/73094/#comment311428>

    revert this change in message, since no change to the method called above 
at #139?


- Madhan Neethiraj


On Dec. 22, 2020, 1:07 a.m., Abhay Kulkarni wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/73094/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 22, 2020, 1:07 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for ranger, Madhan Neethiraj, Mehul Parikh, Ramesh Mani, 
> Sailaja Polavarapu, and Velmurugan Periasamy.
> 
> 
> Bugs: RANGER-3122
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RANGER-3122
> 
> 
> Repository: ranger
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Currently delegate-admin cannot be marked for specific permissions. It is 
> all-or-nothing for the permissions defined in resource policy. Ranger should 
> have ability for granting delegate-admin for specific permissions.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> agents-common/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/plugin/policyevaluator/RangerDefaultPolicyEvaluator.java
>  d64d226a6 
>   
> agents-common/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/plugin/policyevaluator/RangerOptimizedPolicyEvaluator.java
>  bac076c29 
>   
> agents-common/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/plugin/policyevaluator/RangerPolicyEvaluator.java
>  236f99820 
>   
> agents-common/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/plugin/service/RangerBasePlugin.java
>  873553a60 
>   
> agents-common/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/plugin/util/ServiceDefUtil.java 
> cd6c18ba7 
>   security-admin/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/biz/RangerPolicyAdmin.java 
> 891c800fe 
>   
> security-admin/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/biz/RangerPolicyAdminImpl.java 
> cd566bc34 
>   security-admin/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/rest/ServiceREST.java 
> 802abac68 
>   security-admin/src/test/java/org/apache/ranger/biz/TestPolicyDb.java 
> 7416fe45d 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/73094/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Passes all unit tests.
> Tested in cluster with HDFS policies:
> 1. There is a delegate-admin policy giving user1 'read' permission on /tmp, 
> and another delegate-admin policy giving user1 'write' permission on /tmp/a
>      a. user1 can create policy on /tmp/b with permission 'read', but cannot 
> create policy on /tmp/c with permission 'write'
>      b. user1 can create policy on /tmp/a/d with permissions 'read' and 
> 'write' but cannot create policy on /tmp/a/e with permission 'execute'.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Abhay Kulkarni
> 
>

Reply via email to