Awesome. Thanks Vinod. Let me try that.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Vinod Kone <[email protected]> wrote:

> Quoting form the documentation
> <http://mesos.apache.org/documentation/latest/authorization/>:
>
> "
>
> There are couple of important things to note:
>
>    1.
>
>    ACLs are matched in the order that they are setup. In other words, the
>    first matching ACL determines whether a request is authorized or not.
>    2.
>
>    If none of the specified ACLs match the given request, whether the
>    request is authorized or not is defined by ACLs.permissive field. By
>    default this is “true” i.e., a non-matching request is authorized.
>
>
> "
>
> So in your case, since the user doesn't match "user1" and "permissive" is
> not set (default), the request is authorized.
>
> If you only want your framework to run tasks as "user1", add '"permissive"
> = false'  to your ACLs JSON.
>
> HTH,
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Sivaram Kannan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Just to make it more clear, I want to understand in which scenario would
>> the task authorization will fail and framework gets a TASK_LOST error. I
>> would greatly appreciate If you could give an example what I should change
>> in the acl.json and the master or slave to get the TASK_LOST errror.
>>
>> Version of Mesos: 0.21.1 and marathon v0.7.7-SNAPSHOT. All of them are
>> being run as docker containers.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ./Siva.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Sivaram Kannan <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Guess I don't understand then. Let me give some tests I ran for
>>> understanding ACL, but am not clear which unix users is this. Assume I have
>>> two nodes.
>>>
>>> Node1 - runs Mesos-master and marathon
>>> Node2 - runs mesos-slave
>>>
>>> Both the above nodes have an users named devel and root.
>>>
>>> Test1: I started the mesos-master with the following acl.json
>>>
>>> "run_tasks": [
>>>         {
>>>             "principals": {
>>>                 "values": [
>>>                     "marathon"
>>>                 ]
>>>             },
>>>             "users": {
>>>                 "values": [
>>>                     "root",
>>>                     "devel"
>>>                 ]
>>>             }
>>>         },
>>>         {
>>>             "principals": {
>>>                 "values": [
>>>                     "marathon"
>>>                 ]
>>>             },
>>>             "users": {
>>>                 "type": "NONE"
>>>             }
>>>         }
>>>     ]
>>>
>>> I  was able to launch the tasks from the marathon. Now I modified the
>>> acl.json as follow and relaunched the mesos-master. In this I wanted to
>>> make the task fail and see the error
>>>
>>>              "principals": {
>>>                 "values": [
>>>                     "marathon"
>>>                 ]
>>>             },
>>>             "users": {
>>>                 "values": [
>>>                    "user1"
>>>                 ]
>>>             }
>>>
>>>
>>> Even now I am able to launch the tasks from the marathon instance. So,
>>> can you please tell me which nodes unix user does values under "users" tag
>>> refers to? Am I making anything wrong in the way I am using run_tasks??
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> ./Siva
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Vinod Kone <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not very familiar with Marathon, but the 'user' in the 'run_tasks'
>>>> ACL is the unix user that the executor/run process runs as. This user is
>>>> set by frameworks by setting 'CommandInfo.user'.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Sivaram Kannan <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The user that is defined as part of Mesos's Authorization ACL, which
>>>>> user is it? Taking marathon framework as example, the users defined as 
>>>>> part
>>>>> of run_tasks principal, is it the user that is used to run marathon
>>>>> executable or the unix user available in the mesos-slave's?
>>>>>
>>>>> Documentation in
>>>>> http://mesos.apache.org/documentation/latest/authorization/ does not
>>>>> seems to be clear on that. Can someone clarify?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> ./Siva.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ever tried. ever failed. no matter.
>>> try again. fail again. fail better.
>>>         -- Samuel Beckett
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ever tried. ever failed. no matter.
>> try again. fail again. fail better.
>>         -- Samuel Beckett
>>
>
>


-- 
ever tried. ever failed. no matter.
try again. fail again. fail better.
        -- Samuel Beckett

Reply via email to