> On Dec. 1, 2015, 2:24 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > src/master/master.cpp, line 2771 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39987/diff/9/?file=1149276#file1149276line2771> > > > > Why is it that we need to perform validation within authorization? We > > perform `authorizeTask` with a `TaskInfo` that has not been validated yet, > > and take care of it later on. Does that pattern not work here? > > Greg Mann wrote: > That pattern would work here, and the original patches I posted worked > that way. We ended up switching to this solution because it makes for a > cleaner implementation and eliminates some redundant code. However, it does > come at the cost of making error messaging more difficult (as you noted in > another patch) and decreasing the separation of functionality that can make > debugging easier. I don't have a strong preference for either path at the > moment. Perhaps Jie could chime in with his thoughts? > > Jie Yu wrote: > I looked at the code again. I guess the reason we validate the operation > before authorization is because we want to get all the principals from > resources in UNRESERVE, and we want to make sure resources in UNRESERVE > operation is valid. As MPark pointed out, coupling authorization with > validation does cause some confusion when generating error messages. How > about the following: > > 1) we don't perform validation in authorization. In > authorizeUnreserveResources, when we iterate all resources, we can do the > following as you previosly did (sorry about the back and forth, my bad). > ``` > foreach (const Resource& resource, unreserve.resources()) { > if (Resources::isDynamicallyReserved(resource)) { > request.mutable_reserver_principals()->add_values( > resource.reservation().principal()); > } > } > ``` > > 2) in Http::reserve and Http::unreserve, we still perform validation > first before calling master->authroizeXXX. > > 3) in `Master::_accept`, we perform operation validation on > RESERVE/UNRESERVE. > > Let me know if that's better or not?
No worries, Jie! I learned about `Future<>::repair()` in the process so I consider it worthwhile :-) I have one question about your plan: for `LAUNCH` operations, tasks are authorized before they get validated, and I'm wondering if it's worth making this part of the interface consistent across all types of operations, i.e. perhaps we should change the code for `LAUNCH` to validate before authorization as well. If we decide to do this, I could do it here or in another review. - Greg ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39987/#review108496 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 30, 2015, 8:35 p.m., Greg Mann wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/39987/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 30, 2015, 8:35 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 'Master::authorize(Un)reserveResources()' for Reserve/Unreserve. > Note: this review is continued from https://reviews.apache.org/r/37125/ > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/master.hpp 96951e766de32842197506504e5ac67a2caa3efe > src/master/master.cpp b918ae4a0e7dc3cd41165fc4b683ae7b6f031821 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39987/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > This is the third in a chain of 5 patches. `make check` was used to test > after all patches were applied. > > > Thanks, > > Greg Mann > >
