Alexey Serbin has posted comments on this change. ( 
http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/24511 )

Change subject: KUDU-3787 Make tls_debug support Kerberos
......................................................................


Patch Set 2: Code-Review+2

(3 comments)

LGTM

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/24511/2//COMMIT_MSG
Commit Message:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/24511/2//COMMIT_MSG@15
PS2, Line 15: It also fixes a bug (which was only present in debug build) that
            : surfaced while testing skipping authentication where a malformed
            : negotiation could crash a server
It's nice to have an extra fix like this.  Thanks a lot!


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/24511/2/src/kudu/integration-tests/security-itest.cc
File src/kudu/integration-tests/security-itest.cc:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/24511/2/src/kudu/integration-tests/security-itest.cc@496
PS2, Line 496: is refused
Refused by the server side, right?  But what if a client talks to a malicious 
server that doesn't refuse RPCs in such a case?

Even if hypothetical, but was the point in my comment at 
https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/24511/1/src/kudu/rpc/client_negotiation.cc@228

So far it seems the client side wouldn't send its authn token to a server in 
this case (because authn step is skipped), but it would send its authz tokens.  
However, it's a hypothetical situation because: (1) Kudu C++ client API doesn't 
expose ClientNegotiation class (2) even if somebody mindlessly messes up with 
ClientNegotiation class, it requires additional wiring to call set_skip_authn() 
that would affect connections created by KuduClient (3) it's would require 
additional meddling to call set_skip_authn() only on connections to malicious 
servers, but not calling it on connections to valid servers :)


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/24511/2/src/kudu/integration-tests/security-itest.cc@504
PS2, Line 504: TestSkipAuthnSocketIsUseless
Thank you for adding this test -- it's nice to have an explicit test scenario 
like this even if such a situation is implicitly covered by already existing 
test scenario (I haven't check for the latter, though).



--
To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/24511
To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings

Gerrit-Project: kudu
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Change-Id: Ic6c6c9ac1cebeab8cb48bd22aea852c93c0252a4
Gerrit-Change-Number: 24511
Gerrit-PatchSet: 2
Gerrit-Owner: Attila Bukor <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Alexey Serbin <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Attila Bukor <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jason Fehr <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Kudu Jenkins (120)
Gerrit-Reviewer: Marton Greber <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:40:49 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes

Reply via email to