[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5405?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15308700#comment-15308700
]
Till Toenshoff edited comment on MESOS-5405 at 5/31/16 9:46 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
[~tillt] [~adam-mesos] [~mcypark]
This breaks some assumptions of the current `authorized` interface which assume
`subject` and `object` are set (see below).
In order to accomodate for this these new optional fields i would propose the
following
1. Change getObjectApprover's signatures to accept Option<subject>, Option
<action>
2. Change objectApprover->approved() signature to accept an Option<object>
(and adapt the logic in approved for the LocalAuthorizerObjectApprover to deal
with the None -> Any conversion)
{noformat}
Future<bool> authorized(const authorization::Request& request)
{
return getObjectApprover(request.subject(), request.action())
.then([=](const Owned<ObjectApprover>& objectApprover) -> Future<bool> {
ObjectApprover::Object object(request.object());
Try<bool> result = objectApprover->approved(object);
if (result.isError()) {
return Failure(result.error());
}
return result.get();
});
}
{noformat}
was (Author: js84):
[~tillt] [~adam-mesos] [~mcypark]
This breaks some assumptions of the current `authorized` interface which assume
`subject` and `object` are set (see below).
In order to accomodate for this these new optional fields i would propose the
following
1. Change getObjectApprover's signatures to accept Option<subject>, Option
<action>
2. Change objectApprover->approved() signature to accept an Option<object>
(and adapt the logic in approved for the LocalAuthorizerObjectApprover to deal
with the None -> Any conversion)
```
Future<bool> authorized(const authorization::Request& request)
{
return getObjectApprover(request.subject(), request.action())
.then([=](const Owned<ObjectApprover>& objectApprover) -> Future<bool> {
ObjectApprover::Object object(request.object());
Try<bool> result = objectApprover->approved(object);
if (result.isError()) {
return Failure(result.error());
}
return result.get();
});
}
```
> Make fields in authorization::Request protobuf optional.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MESOS-5405
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5405
> Project: Mesos
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Alexander Rukletsov
> Assignee: Till Toenshoff
> Priority: Blocker
> Labels: mesosphere, security
> Fix For: 1.0.0
>
>
> Currently {{authorization::Request}} protobuf declares {{subject}} and
> {{object}} as required fields. However, in the codebase we not always set
> them, which renders the message in the uninitialized state, for example:
> *
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/0bfd6999ebb55ddd45e2c8566db17ab49bc1ffec/src/common/http.cpp#L603
> *
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/0bfd6999ebb55ddd45e2c8566db17ab49bc1ffec/src/master/http.cpp#L2057
> I believe that the reason why we don't see issues related to this is because
> we never send authz requests over the wire, i.e., never serialize/deserialize
> them. However, they are still invalid protobuf messages. Moreover, some
> external authorizers may serialize these messages.
> We can either ensure all required fields are set or make both {{subject}} and
> {{object}} fields optional. This will also require updating local authorizer,
> which should properly handle the situation when these fields are absent. We
> may also want to notify authors of external authorizers to update their code
> accordingly.
> It looks like no deprecation is necessary, mainly because we
> already—erroneously!—treat these fields as optional.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
