Michael Ho has posted comments on this change. ( 
http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/11331 )

Change subject: Add missing authorization in KRPC
......................................................................


Patch Set 3:

(5 comments)

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11331/2/be/src/common/global-flags.cc
File be/src/common/global-flags.cc:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11331/2/be/src/common/global-flags.cc@50
PS2, Line 50: krb5_ccname
> Should this be hidden? I dont think we'd want to support users changing it,
I actually prefer to keep it public so the user can configure it for cases such 
as KUDU-2545. I will add a remark about its being advanced option.


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11331/3/be/src/rpc/rpc-mgr.h
File be/src/rpc/rpc-mgr.h:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11331/3/be/src/rpc/rpc-mgr.h@25
PS3, Line 25: #include "rpc/authentication.h"
            : #include "rpc/impala-service-pool.h"
            : #include "util/auth-util.h"
> are these new includes necessary? I don't see any new usages of types in th
Left over from previous patch. Removed.


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11331/3/be/src/rpc/rpc-mgr.cc
File be/src/rpc/rpc-mgr.cc:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11331/3/be/src/rpc/rpc-mgr.cc@172
PS3, Line 172:     mem_tracker->Release(context->GetTransferSize());
> slight nit (though I guess this happens elsewhere also): shouldn't we wait
Sure. Will do it as a clean-up in a follow-on patch. That said, my 
understanding is that the reply itself is processed asynchronously.


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11331/3/be/src/rpc/rpc-mgr.cc@173
PS3, Line 173:     context->RespondFailure(kudu::Status::NotAuthorized(
> should we also log the unauthorized access attempt (perhaps including the e
Done


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11331/3/be/src/util/auth-util.cc
File be/src/util/auth-util.cc:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11331/3/be/src/util/auth-util.cc@84
PS3, Line 84: Status ParseKerberosPrincipal(const string& principal, string* 
service_name,
> I wonder whether we should just be using krb5_parse_name here instead of im
When writing this patch, I noticed the previous implementation made two calls 
split() which seems unnecessary. I fixed it as part of this patch as I was 
calling it in the previous version of this patch but this is not needed anymore 
in the new version. It doesn't hurt to keep it though.

I am not sure why krb5_parse_name() wasn't used here in the previous 
implementation. Given the Kudu code has better infrastructure, it seems easier 
for me to add a utility function to Kudu and call it here instead. Filed 
IMPALA-7504 for this.



--
To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/11331
To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings

Gerrit-Project: Impala-ASF
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Change-Id: I2f82dee5e721f2ed23e75fd91abbc6ab7addd4c5
Gerrit-Change-Number: 11331
Gerrit-PatchSet: 3
Gerrit-Owner: Michael Ho <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Impala Public Jenkins <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Michael Ho <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Sailesh Mukil <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Todd Lipcon <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 00:24:31 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes

Reply via email to