[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15133348#comment-15133348
]
Colin Patrick McCabe commented on HDFS-9395:
--------------------------------------------
bq. To make it simple, logAuditEvent(false, <cmd>, src); should be inside catch
block of AccessControlException, and logAuditEvent(true, <cmd>, src); just
before returning. No auditlogging in finally blocks. Right?
+1
> HDFS operations vary widely in which failures they put in the audit log and
> which they leave out
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-9395
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9395
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Kihwal Lee
> Assignee: Kuhu Shukla
> Attachments: HDFS-9395.001.patch, HDFS-9395.002.patch
>
>
> So, the big question here is what should go in the audit log? All failures,
> or just "permission denied" failures? Or, to put it a different way, if
> someone attempts to do something and it fails because a file doesn't exist,
> is that worth an audit log entry?
> We are currently inconsistent on this point. For example, concat,
> getContentSummary, addCacheDirective, and setErasureEncodingPolicy create an
> audit log entry for all failures, but setOwner, delete, and setAclEntries
> attempt to only create an entry for AccessControlException-based failures.
> There are a few operations, like allowSnapshot, disallowSnapshot, and
> startRollingUpgrade that never create audit log failure entries at all. They
> simply log nothing for any failure, and log success for a successful
> operation.
> So to summarize, different HDFS operations currently fall into 3 categories:
> 1. audit-log all failures
> 2. audit-log only AccessControlException failures
> 3. never audit-log failures
> Which category is right? And how can we fix the inconsistency
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
