[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1045?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15471378#comment-15471378
]
Patrick Hunt commented on ZOOKEEPER-1045:
-----------------------------------------
That's reasonable. How do other systems typically ensure that the code doing
the authz has knows the <good host> then? They specify the principals on every
process doing authz? In our case every zk server would need to know the
principals of all ensemble members? We have the list of servers already in the
zoo.cfg for example, however the server address can be anything - e.g. ip
address. Would it make sense to require that the server addresses in zoo.cfg
match the host used in the principal?
> Support Quorum Peer mutual authentication via SASL
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-1045
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1045
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: server
> Reporter: Eugene Koontz
> Assignee: Rakesh R
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 3.4.10, 3.5.3
>
> Attachments: 0001-ZOOKEEPER-1045-br-3-4.patch,
> 1045_failing_phunt.tar.gz, HOST_RESOLVER-ZK-1045.patch,
> TEST-org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum.auth.QuorumAuthUpgradeTest.txt,
> ZK-1045-test-case-failure-logs.zip, ZOOKEEPER-1045-00.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-1045-Rolling Upgrade Design Proposal.pdf,
> ZOOKEEPER-1045-br-3-4.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1045-br-3-4.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-1045-br-3-4.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1045-br-3-4.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-1045-br-3-4.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1045-br-3-4.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-1045TestValidationDesign.pdf
>
>
> ZOOKEEPER-938 addresses mutual authentication between clients and servers.
> This bug, on the other hand, is for authentication among quorum peers.
> Hopefully much of the work done on SASL integration with Zookeeper for
> ZOOKEEPER-938 can be used as a foundation for this enhancement.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
