Missed the security-dev list.

On 7/7/2014 10:39 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
> I have not read the fix.  I was just wondering that this fix save the
> wait time, but increase the networking traffics, and increase the
> workload of KDC servers.  I think the KDC timeout should be corner cases
> for TCP, and it is tolerable for UDP connections.  I'm not confident
> that this is a cost-effective update if we considering the overall
> system of Kerberos.
> 
> Xuelei
> 
> On 6/24/2014 4:17 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> Please review the code change at
>>
>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8014870/webrev.00/
>>
>> In Kerberos, when trying to request for a ticket, we tried multiple KDC 
>> servers for multiple times. Before this fix, we connect to a server, wait 
>> for 30 seconds (the default kdc_timeout). If there is no answer, go to the 
>> next KDC, wait for another 30 seconds, and so on. If none of the KDCs 
>> replies. We do more rounds (max_retries, default 3) of connections, and fail 
>> at last. Altogether with 3 KDCs we will wait at most 3*30*3=270 seconds.
>>
>> After this fix, connections are non-blocking and made every second, so they 
>> can wait at the same time. The kdc_timeout default is also reduced to 10 
>> seconds (the same as other vendors). At the worst case, we will wait 
>> 3*3+10=19 seconds.
>>
>> You might say that changing kdc_timeout to 10 seconds matters a lot here but 
>> actually the wait-together style is much more helpful. Suppose only the 3rd 
>> KDC is alive, the old code needs to wait for 60 seconds to be able to 
>> connect to it, while the new one only needs to wait for 2 seconds, and this 
>> has nothing to do with kdc_timeout.
>>
>> Because of this, I've thrown away the old krb5.kdc.bad.policy security 
>> property. It's now not worth remembering which KDC is alive and which is not.
>>
>> All changes are inside the KdcComm.java file. Others are test and removal of 
>> useless things.
>>
>> I've included net-dev@ because these are all NIO calls, which I was no 
>> familiar with.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Max
>>
> 

Reply via email to