-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/46613/#review134291
-----------------------------------------------------------




include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto (lines 69 - 70)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/46613/#comment199067>

    The `WITH_INFO` doesn't really seem to tell me anything. What's the 
intended meaning?



include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto (line 70)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/46613/#comment199069>

    Should this be `VIEW_TASKS`?


- Michael Park


On May 21, 2016, 9:29 p.m., Joerg Schad wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/46613/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 21, 2016, 9:29 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Alexander Rojas, and Michael Park.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-5169
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5169
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> In order to allow for framework and task level filtering we introduce
> the following authorizer actions:
> * VIEW_FRAMEWORK_WITH_INFO
> * VIEW_TASK_WITH_TASK
> 
> Note that we need different actions for authorizing a tasks
> based on the object being authorized.
> 
> We also introduce the following acls for the local authorizer:
> * ViewFrameworks  (giving access to frameworks running under
>   a specific OS user)
> * ViewTasks view_tasks (giving access to Tasks run under a
>     specific OS user)
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/authorizer/acls.proto 
> b178f53a299a2941afc073af963f6aff26af1ca8 
>   include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto 
> 911a2271211249a41c4467f6754e9996f640bf38 
>   src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp 
> dc53bc4374aea98b5ed41ade5617374d2447229b 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46613/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check (OSX)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joerg Schad
> 
>

Reply via email to