[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6474?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14058286#comment-14058286
 ] 

Yi Liu commented on HDFS-6474:
------------------------------

Thanks [~andrew.wang] for the patch. It’s great to use monitor and avoid a 
synchronous RPC to the KMS on every create encrypted files within a zone.
{quote}
 Namely, a review of the locking in regards to KeyProvider usage would be 
appreciated
{quote}
I have go through the locking carefully, It’s great, not found issue from my 
point of view. :)

My comments are:
*1.* We can get key version too when creating encryption zone.  Then 
{{latestEZKeyVersion}} always exists when creating encrypted files within a 
zone, that’s more efficient.
*2.* In {{FSNamesystem}},  for {{startFileInt}} and {{startFileInternal}}, It 
should work with current logic, but it couples {{newFileEncryptionInfo}} and 
{{startFileInternal}}; {{newFileEncryptionInfo}} will need to create EKDK, and 
we involve startFileInternal in unnecessary loop logic.  
         * If change it to following would look more clear:
         a)     do startFileInternal, but do not do {{getEditLog().logOpenFile}}
         b)     If the file is in encryption zone, then we do 
newFileEncryptionInfo, and loop and handle the retry.
         c)     Finally we do {{getEditLog().logOpenFile}}


> Namenode needs to get the actual keys and iv from the KeyProvider
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-6474
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6474
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: namenode, security
>            Reporter: Charles Lamb
>            Assignee: Andrew Wang
>         Attachments: hdfs-6474.001.patch
>
>
> The Namenode has code to connect to the KeyProvider, but it needs to actually 
> get the keys and return them to the client at the right time.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to