accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Josh Elser (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4019) thrift proxy no longer listening on all interfaces
Date Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:31:28 GMT


Josh Elser commented on ACCUMULO-4019:

bq. I think binding to all interfaces could be a security issue in some organizations. Can
we make it configurable?

Yeah, while unexpectedly changing (I'd blame myself, tbqh, but I would guess it was unintentional),
this is important to know what interface is being bound, especially in the face of Kerberos.
This has parity with the rest of the server processes.

bq. Maybe default to all interfaces to fix the backwards compatibility issue?

I'd be happier to change it to allow the user to configure things to operate as they used
to instead of switch it back to default to the old functionality of bind to everything. I'd
say the change was unexpected, but if it happened in 1.7.0, it was just poorly advertised

> thrift proxy no longer listening on all interfaces
> --------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-4019
>                 URL:
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: proxy
>    Affects Versions: 1.7.0
>            Reporter: Adam Fuchs
> In updating the thrift proxy to use HostAndPort-style configuration, we changed the behavior
from listening on all interfaces to only listening on the canonical host name interface. This
broke the proxy for some users:
> {code}
> -    TServer server = createProxyServer(AccumuloProxy.class, ProxyServer.class, port,
protoFactoryClass, opts.prop);
> -    server.serve();
> +    HostAndPort address = HostAndPort.fromParts(InetAddress.getLocalHost().getCanonicalHostName(),
> +    ServerAddress server = createProxyServer(address, protoFactory, opts.prop);
> {code}
> Does anybody know what prompted this change? To fix this, I think we should hardcode
it to listen to all interfaces. Would the correct way of doing that be to use the following
> {code}
> HostAndPort address = HostAndPort.fromParts("::", port);
> {code}

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message