-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/58224/#review173903
-----------------------------------------------------------



Patch looks great!

Reviews applied: [58977, 58928, 58224]

Passed command: export OS='ubuntu:14.04' BUILDTOOL='autotools' COMPILER='gcc' 
CONFIGURATION='--verbose' ENVIRONMENT='GLOG_v=1 MESOS_VERBOSE=1'; 
./support/docker-build.sh

- Mesos Reviewbot


On May 4, 2017, 12:31 a.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/58224/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 4, 2017, 12:31 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Benjamin Mahler.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7401
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7401
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> In general, libprocess is unable to validate that a peer
> is a legitimate owner of the UPID it claims in a libprocess
> message. This change adds a check that the IP address in the
> UPID matches the peer address. This makes spoofing the UPID
> harder (eg. to send authenticated messages), but also breaks
> some legitimate configurations, particularly on multihomed
> hosts.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp 
> f5b666f894215cb1861c244c94b382e0739bc5c9 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/58224/diff/6/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check (Fedora 25). Light manual testing.
> 
> With LIBPROCESS_require_peer_address_ip_match=true, all Mesos tests pass 
> except ``ExamplesTest.DiskFullFramework``, however enabling this will 
> definitely break some libprocess APIs (though not in the way that Mesos uses 
> them) and legitimate multi-homed configurations. Note that setting 
> LIBPROCESS_ip=127.0.0.1 makes you multihomed for this purpose, which is why 
> ``ExamplesTest.DiskFullFramework`` breaks.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Reply via email to