> On March 10, 2016, 7:31 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > src/master/validation.cpp, line 381
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44570/diff/3/?file=1293312#file1293312line381>
> >
> >     It may be sufficient to only check `if (task.has_owner() && 
> > task.has_executor())` since a custom executor should set the owner on the 
> > ExecutorInfo not the TaskInfo.

That is if the `ExecutorInfo` is reused in a `TaskInfo` it's sufficient to 
check for that? That makes sense because the `ExecutorInfo` validation compares 
the `ExecutorId` against the ones of existing `ExecutorInfo`s. But how'd we 
make sure that the owner is set in `ExecutorInfo` if that executor isn't 
existing yet?


- Jan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/44570/#review122887
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 9, 2016, 4:48 p.m., Jan Schlicht wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/44570/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 9, 2016, 4:48 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B and Joerg Schad.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-4772
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4772
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> To be able to authenticate HTTP requests for tasks, the authorizer has to
> determine who owns the tasks. This is achieved by adding an owner field to
> TaskInfo and ExecutorInfo.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/mesos.proto 3d22ec32655dca741169e1f0e382303e061c38b7 
>   src/master/validation.hpp 29dbdf1da540db4966ff9e86037badde06e69a4b 
>   src/master/validation.cpp 820a9faee6fde09a98317854b181fe897167e2ca 
>   src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp 
> c9bc38ce604d2d44d6e6b1286507d1c45e5e9e25 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44570/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jan Schlicht
> 
>

Reply via email to