[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5730?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15361590#comment-15361590
]
Till Toenshoff commented on MESOS-5730:
---------------------------------------
{noformat}
commit 97cc5b58c67930cc3d23eaefe14b5be3f84af4a2
Author: Joerg Schad <[email protected]>
Date: Mon Jul 4 18:44:16 2016 +0200
Fixed incorrect comment on ACCESS_SANDBOX in authorizer.proto.
The current semantic is that these fields might not be set.
Review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49319/
{noformat}
> Sandbox access authorization should fail for non existing sandboxes.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MESOS-5730
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5730
> Project: Mesos
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: security
> Affects Versions: 1.0.0
> Reporter: Till Toenshoff
> Priority: Blocker
> Labels: authorization, mesosphere, security
> Fix For: 1.0.0
>
>
> The local authorizer currently tries to authorize {{ACCESS_SANDBOX}} even if
> no further object specification - e.g. {{framework_info}} or
> {{executor_info}}) where specified / available at that time.
> Given that there is likely no sandbox available if there was no
> {{executor_info}} provided, I think we should actually fail instead of allow
> or deny (403).
> A failure would result into an IMHO more appropriate ServiceUnavailable
> (503).
> See
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/commit/c8d67590064e35566274116cede9c6a733187b48#diff-dd692b1640b2628014feca01a94ba1e1R241
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
