> On Nov. 14, 2015, 12:07 a.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, lines 3037-3049
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39989/diff/7/?file=1125447#file1125447line3037>
> >
> >     Hum, this looks problematic to me. The authorization results are stored 
> > in 'futures'. The ordering in 'futures' is important because we'll read the 
> > authorization results in `_accept` based on the ordering.
> >     
> >     However, you call `drop` here and skip the authorization. That means 
> > the ordering invariant is no longer hold.
> >     
> >     I would suggest that you perform operation validation in 
> > authorizeReserveResources and returns a Failure if validation fails. In 
> > that way, you can drop the operation in `_accept` if authorization returns 
> > a failure.
> >     
> >     Please also add a comment about the fact that ordering in 'futures' is 
> > very important.
> >     
> >     Also, you may want to add a test to test the cases where RESERVE and 
> > LAUNCH are in one single `accept` call.

Thanks Jie, this is indeed a problem. I've implemented a solution which simply 
pushes a failed `Future` onto `futures` so that `_accept()` can handle the 
failure. The current diff includes this, as well as a new test that explicitly 
probes the previous bug.

I like your idea of putting the validation into `authorizeReserveResources()`, 
especially since similar validation logic is also found in the HTTP endpoint 
authorization code. That requires a bit of refactoring, which I'm working on 
currently. Will post a new patch soon.


- Greg


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39989/#review106534
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 17, 2015, 5:07 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39989/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 17, 2015, 5:07 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Jie Yu, Michael Park, and Till Toenshoff.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3062
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3062
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added framework authorization for dynamic reservation.
> Note: this review is continued from https://reviews.apache.org/r/37127/
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.cpp 39a0e730b230cee73e30d831ee67d9207359ae28 
>   src/tests/reservation_tests.cpp ac664ebb49e74aa28551f427ea8f39ac9ce0cfb3 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39989/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> This is the fifth in a chain of 5 patches. New reservation tests were added 
> to `reservation_tests.cpp` to validate the authentication of framework 
> reserve and unreserve operations using ACLs. `make check` was run to test 
> after all patches were applied.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Greg Mann
> 
>

Reply via email to