The accepting of a txn for being processed does not mean that the txn has
been accpeted by the quorum and has been applied to the quorum servers. So,
it is very much possible that one of the client changes an acl on a node and
the other client unauthorized to read (with respect to the change by
client1) reads the data before the acl change is propagated and accepted by
On 2/10/09 4:34 PM, "Manos Kapritsos" <ma...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
> More or less, yes.
> If the requests are from the same client, then you say that there will
> not be a problem? I guess that is true if you always wait for the
> response of the first request in order to execute the second. I am not
> sure if that is a requirement for all Zookeeper client implementations.
> As for two different clients (which was the case I was thinking about),
> this seems to be a problem. I will agree that (if clients only have one
> outstanding request) the two requests are concurrent and either order of
> execution is considered to be acceptable, but it could be that two
> different replicas receive the two requests in the same order, but
> effectively execute them in a different order. In any case, it feels
> wrong (at least to me) that a getData would succeed when a setACL that
> prevents it has already been accepted to be processed.
> Mahadev Konar wrote:
>> Hi Manos,
>> If the setAcl and getdata are from the same client then they are all
>> handled in order. So you would get an unauthroized exception when you do a
>> If two diff clients do setacl and getdata it might be that the getdata in
>> your case will succeed before the setacl returns on the first client.
>> Is that what you meant?
>> On 2/10/09 2:15 PM, "Manos Kapritsos" <ma...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I have a question about the way setACL functions. It seems that the
>>> PreRequestProcessor handles all kinds of requests the same, checks the
>>> validity of the corresponding ACL, and enqueues them to Sync and Final
>>> processors. Maybe I am missing something here, but this behaviour seems
>>> weird. What if a setACL request comes, setting the ACL of a path (e.g. /
>>> ) to an IP (e.g. 18.104.22.168) , instead of its old value (e.g. World).
>>> This request will pass the ACL check, and will be enqueued to be
>>> processed by the next processors. Assume that the next request is a
>>> getData("/") from an IP other than 22.214.171.124. If this request is
>>> processed by the PreRequestProcessor before the setACL request is
>>> processed by the FinalRequestProcessor, then it will pass the ACL check
>>> (which it should not, since it came after the setACL request). It seems
>>> that there is a race condition here that should not exist.
>>> Let me know if this is actually the case or I am missing something. I am
>>> using version 3.0.1 of the code.
>>> Thank you,