airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Davydov <ddavy...@twitter.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Kerberos and Airflow
Date Sun, 29 Jul 2018 21:47:40 GMT
*Let’s say we trust the owner field of the DAGs I think we could do the
following.*
*Obviously, the trusting the user part is key here. It is one of the
reasons I was suggesting using “airflow submit” to update / add dags in
Airflow*


*This is the hard part about my question.*
I think in a true multi-tenant environment we wouldn't be able to trust the
user, otherwise we wouldn't necessarily even need a mapping of Airflow DAG
users to secrets, because if we trust users to set the correct Airflow user
for DAGs, we are basically trusting them with all of the creds the Airflow
scheduler can access for all users anyways.

I actually had the same thought as your "airflow submit" a while ago, which
I discussed with Alex, basically creating an API for adding DAGs instead of
having the Scheduler parse them. FWIW I think it's superior to the git time
machine approach because it's a more generic form of "serialization" and is
more correct as well because the same DAG file parsed on a given git SHA
can produce different DAGs. Let me know what you think, and maybe I can
start a more formal design doc if you are onboard:

A user or service with an auth token sends an "airflow submit" request to a
new kind of Dag Serialization service, along with the serialized DAG
objects generated by parsing on the client. It's important that these
serialized objects are declaritive and not e.g. pickles so that the
scheduler/workers can consume them and reproducability of the DAGs is
guaranteed. The service will then store each generated DAG along with it's
access based on the provided token e.g. using Ranger, and the
scheduler/workers will use the stored DAGs for scheduling/execution.
Operators would be deployed along with the Airflow code separately from the
serialized DAGs.

A serialed DAG would look something like this (basically Luigi-style :)):
MyTask - BashOperator: {
  cmd: "sleep 1"
  user: "Foo"
  access: "token1", "token2"
}

MyDAG: {
  MyTask1 >> SomeOtherTask1
  MyTask2 >> SomeOtherTask1
}

Dynamic DAGs in this case would just consist of a service calling "Airflow
Submit" that does it's own form of authentication to get access to some
kind of tokens (or basically just forwarding the secrets the users of the
dynamic DAG submit).

For the default Airflow implementation you can maybe just have the Dag
Serialization server bundled with the Scheduler, with auth turned off, and
to periodically update the Dag Serialization store which would emulate the
current behavior closely.

Pros:
1. Consistency across running task instances in a dagrun/scheduler,
reproducability and auditability of DAGs
2. Users can control when to deploy their DAGs
3. Scheduler runs much faster since it doesn't have to run python files and
e.g. make network calls
4. Scaling scheduler becomes easier because can have different service
responsible for parsing DAGs which can be trivially scaled horizontally
(clients are doing the parsing)
5. Potentially makes creating ad-hoc DAGs/backfilling/iterating on DAGs
easier? e.g. can use the Scheduler itself to schedule backfills with a
slightly modified serialized version of a DAG.

Cons:
1. Have to deprecate a lot of popular features, e.g. allowing custom
callbacks in operators (e.g. on_failure), and jinja_templates
2. Version compatibility problems, e.g. user/service client might be
serializing arguments for hooks/operators that have been deprecated in
newer versions of the hooks, or the serialized DAG schema changes and old
DAGs aren't automatically updated. Might want to have some kind of
versioning system for serialized DAGs to at least ensure that stored DAGs
are valid when the Scheduler/Worker/etc are upgraded, maybe something
similar to thrift/protobuf versioning.
3. Additional complexity - additional service, logic on workers/scheduler
to fetch/cache serialized DAGs efficiently, expiring/archiving old DAG
definitions, etc


On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:20 PM Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah gotcha. That’s another issue actually (but related).
>
> Let’s say we trust the owner field of the DAGs I think we could do the
> following. We then have a table (and interface) to tell Airflow what users
> have access to what connections. The scheduler can then check if the task
> in the dag can access the conn_id it is asking for. Auto generated dags
> still have an owner (or should) and therefore should be fine. Some
> integrity checking could/should be added as we want to be sure that the
> task we schedule is the task we launch. So a signature calculated at the
> scheduler (or part of the DAG), send as part of the metadata and checked by
> the executor is probably smart.
>
> You can also make this more fancy by integrating with something like
> Apache Ranger that allows for policy checking.
>
> Obviously, the trusting the user part is key here. It is one of the
> reasons I was suggesting using “airflow submit” to update / add dags in
> Airflow. We could enforce authentication on the DAG. It was kind of ruled
> out in favor of git time machines although these never happened afaik ;-).
>
> BTW: I have updated my implementation with protobuf. Metadata is now
> available at executor and task.
>
>
> > On 29 Jul 2018, at 15:47, Dan Davydov <ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >
> > The concern is how to secure secrets on the scheduler such that only
> > certain DAGs can access them, and in the case of files that create DAGs
> > dynamically, only some set of DAGs should be able to access these
> secrets.
> >
> > e.g. if there is a secret/keytab that can be read by DAG A generated by
> > file X, and file X generates DAG B as well, there needs to be a scheme to
> > stop the parsing of DAG B on the scheduler from being able to read the
> > secret in DAG A.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:14 AM Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@gmail.com
> <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> I’m not sure what you mean. The example I created allows for dynamic
> DAGs,
> >> as the scheduler obviously knows about the tasks when they are ready to
> be
> >> scheduled.
> >> This isn’t any different from a static DAG or a dynamic one.
> >>
> >> For Kerberos it isnt that special. Basically a keytab are the revokable
> >> users credentials
> >> in a special format. The keytab itself can be protected by a password.
> So
> >> I can imagine
> >> that a connection is defined that sets a keytab location and password to
> >> access the keytab.
> >> The scheduler understands this (or maybe the Connection model) and
> >> serializes and sends
> >> it to the worker as part of the metadata. The worker then reconstructs
> the
> >> keytab and issues
> >> a kinit or supplies it to the other service requiring it (eg. Spark)
> >>
> >> * Obviously the worker and scheduler need to communicate over SSL.
> >> * There is a challenge at the worker level. Credentials are secured
> >> against other users, but are readable by the owning user. So imagine 2
> DAGs
> >> from two different users with different connections without sudo
> >> configured. If they end up at the same worker if DAG 2 is malicious it
> >> could read files and memory created by DAG 1. This is the reason why
> using
> >> environment variables are NOT safe (DAG 2 could read
> /proc/<pid>/environ).
> >> To mitigate this we probably need to PIPE the data to the task’s STDIN.
> It
> >> won’t solve the issue but will make it harder as now it will only be in
> >> memory.
> >> * The reconstructed keytab (or the initalized version) can be stored in,
> >> most likely, the process-keyring (
> >> http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/process-keyring.7.html <
> >> http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/process-keyring.7.html <
> http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/process-keyring.7.html>>). As
> >> mentioned earlier this poses a challenge for Java applications that
> cannot
> >> read from this location (keytab an ccache). Writing it out to the
> >> filesystem then becomes a possibility. This is essentially the same how
> >> Spark solves it (
> >> https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/security.html#yarn-mode <
> https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/security.html#yarn-mode> <
> >> https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/security.html#yarn-mode <
> https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/security.html#yarn-mode>>).
> >>
> >> Why not work on this together? We need it as well. Airflow as it is now
> we
> >> consider the biggest security threat and it is really hard to secure it.
> >> The above would definitely be a serious improvement. Another step would
> be
> >> to stop Tasks from accessing the Airflow DB all together.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Bolke
> >>
> >>> On 29 Jul 2018, at 05:36, Dan Davydov <ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID
> <mailto:ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This makes sense, and thanks for putting this together. I might pick
> this
> >>> up myself depending on if we can get the rest of the mutli-tenancy
> story
> >>> nailed down, but I still think the tricky part is figuring out how to
> >> allow
> >>> dynamic DAGs (e.g. DAGs created from rows in a Mysql table) to work
> with
> >>> Kerberos, curious what your thoughts are there. How would secrets be
> >> passed
> >>> securely in a multi-tenant Scheduler starting from parsing the DAGs up
> to
> >>> the executor sending them off?
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 5:07 PM Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@gmail.com
> <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Here:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/bolkedebruin/airflow/tree/secure_connections <
> https://github.com/bolkedebruin/airflow/tree/secure_connections> <
> >> https://github.com/bolkedebruin/airflow/tree/secure_connections <
> https://github.com/bolkedebruin/airflow/tree/secure_connections>> <
> >>>> https://github.com/bolkedebruin/airflow/tree/secure_connections <
> https://github.com/bolkedebruin/airflow/tree/secure_connections> <
> >> https://github.com/bolkedebruin/airflow/tree/secure_connections <
> https://github.com/bolkedebruin/airflow/tree/secure_connections>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Is a working rudimentary implementation that allows securing the
> >>>> connections (only LocalExecutor at the moment)
> >>>>
> >>>> * It enforces the use of “conn_id” instead of the mix that we have
now
> >>>> * A task if using “conn_id” has ‘auto-registered’ (which is
a noop)
> its
> >>>> connections
> >>>> * The scheduler reads the connection informations and serializes it
to
> >>>> json (which should be a different format, protobuf preferably)
> >>>> * The scheduler then sends this info to the executor
> >>>> * The executor puts this in the environment of the task (environment
> >> most
> >>>> likely not secure enough for us)
> >>>> * The BaseHook reads out this environment variable and does not need
> to
> >>>> touch the database
> >>>>
> >>>> The example_http_operator works, I havent tested any other. To make
it
> >>>> work I just adjusted the hook and operator to use “conn_id” instead
> >>>> of the non standard http_conn_id.
> >>>>
> >>>> Makes sense?
> >>>>
> >>>> B.
> >>>>
> >>>> * The BaseHook is adjusted to not connect to the database
> >>>>> On 28 Jul 2018, at 17:50, Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@gmail.com <mailto:
> bdbruin@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, I don’t think a hook (or task) should be obtain it by itself.
> It
> >>>> should be supplied.
> >>>>> At the moment you start executing the task you cannot trust it
> anymore
> >>>> (ie. it is unmanaged
> >>>>> / non airflow code).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So we could change the basehook to understand supplied credentials
> and
> >>>> populate
> >>>>> a hash with “conn_ids”. Hooks normally call BaseHook.get_connection
> >>>> anyway, so
> >>>>> it shouldnt be too hard and should in principle not require changes
> to
> >>>> the hooks
> >>>>> themselves if they are well behaved.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> B.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 28 Jul 2018, at 17:41, Dan Davydov <ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID
> <mailto:ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID>
> >>>> <mailto:ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID <mailto:
> ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID> <mailto:
> >> ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID <mailto:ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID>>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *So basically in the scheduler we parse the dag. Either from
the
> >>>> manifest
> >>>>>> (new) or from smart parsing (probably harder, maybe some auto
> >>>> register?) we
> >>>>>> know what connections and keytabs are available dag wide or
per
> task.*
> >>>>>> This is the hard part that I was curious about, for dynamically
> >> created
> >>>>>> DAGs, e.g. those generated by reading tasks in a MySQL database
or a
> >>>> json
> >>>>>> file, there isn't a great way to do this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I 100% agree with deprecating the connections table (at least
for
> the
> >>>>>> secure option). The main work there is rewriting all hooks to
take
> >>>>>> credentials from arbitrary data sources by allowing a customized
> >>>>>> CredentialsReader class. Although hooks are technically private,
I
> >>>> think a
> >>>>>> lot of companies depend on them so the PMC should probably discuss
> if
> >>>> this
> >>>>>> is an Airflow 2.0 change or not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:24 PM Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@gmail.com
> <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com>>
> >>>> <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com> <mailto:
> bdbruin@gmail.com <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure. In general I consider keytabs as a part of connection
> >>>> information.
> >>>>>>> Connections should be secured by sending the connection
> information a
> >>>> task
> >>>>>>> needs as part of information the executor gets. A task should
then
> >> not
> >>>> need
> >>>>>>> access to the connection table in Airflow. Keytabs could
then be
> send
> >>>> as
> >>>>>>> part of the connection information (base64 encoded) and
setup by
> the
> >>>>>>> executor (this key) to be read only to the task it is launching.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So basically in the scheduler we parse the dag. Either from
the
> >>>> manifest
> >>>>>>> (new) or from smart parsing (probably harder, maybe some
auto
> >>>> register?) we
> >>>>>>> know what connections and keytabs are available dag wide
or per
> task.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The credentials and connection information then are serialized
> into a
> >>>>>>> protobuf message and send to the executor as part of the
“queue”
> >>>> action.
> >>>>>>> The worker then deserializes the information and makes it
securely
> >>>>>>> available to the task (which is quite hard btw).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On that last bit making the info securely available might
be
> storing
> >>>> it in
> >>>>>>> the Linux KEYRING (supported by python keyring). Keytabs
will be
> >> tough
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>> do properly due to Java not properly supporting KEYRING
and only
> >> files
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>> these are hard to make secure (due to the possibility a
process
> will
> >>>> list
> >>>>>>> all files in /tmp and get credentials through that). Maybe
storing
> >> the
> >>>>>>> keytab with a password and having the password in the KEYRING
might
> >>>> work.
> >>>>>>> Something to find out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> B.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Op 27 jul. 2018 om 22:04 heeft Dan Davydov
> >>>> <ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID <mailto:ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID>
> <mailto:ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID <mailto:ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID
> >>
> >> <mailto:ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID <mailto:
> ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID> <mailto:ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID
> <mailto:ddavydov@twitter.com.INVALID>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> het volgende geschreven:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm curious if you had any ideas in terms of ideas to
enable
> >>>>>>> multi-tenancy
> >>>>>>>> with respect to Kerberos in Airflow.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:38 PM Bolke de Bruin <
> bdbruin@gmail.com <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com>>
> >>>> <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com> <mailto:
> bdbruin@gmail.com <mailto:bdbruin@gmail.com>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Cool. The doc will need some refinement as it isn't
entirely
> >>>> accurate.
> >>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>>>> addition we need to separate between Airflow as
a client of
> >>>> kerberized
> >>>>>>>>> services (this is what is talked about in the astronomer
doc) vs
> >>>>>>>>> kerberizing airflow itself, which the API supports.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In general to access kerberized services (airflow
as a client)
> one
> >>>> needs
> >>>>>>>>> to start the ticket renewer with a valid keytab.
For the hooks it
> >>>> isn't
> >>>>>>>>> always required to change the hook to support it.
Hadoop cli
> tools
> >>>> often
> >>>>>>>>> just pick it up as their client config is set to
do so. Then
> >> another
> >>>>>>> class
> >>>>>>>>> is there for HTTP-like services which are accessed
by urllib
> under
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> hood, these typically use SPNEGO. These often need
to be adjusted
> >> as
> >>>> it
> >>>>>>>>> requires some urllib config. Finally, there are
protocols which
> use
> >>>> SASL
> >>>>>>>>> with kerberos. Like HDFS (not webhdfs, that uses
SPNEGO). These
> >>>> require
> >>>>>>> per
> >>>>>>>>> protocol implementations.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From the top of my head we support kerberos client
side now with:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * Spark
> >>>>>>>>> * HDFS (snakebite python 2.7, cli and with the upcoming
libhdfs
> >>>>>>>>> implementation)
> >>>>>>>>> * Hive (not metastore afaik)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Two things to remember:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * If a job (ie. Spark job) will finish later than
the maximum
> >> ticket
> >>>>>>>>> lifetime you probably need to provide a keytab to
said
> application.
> >>>>>>>>> Otherwise you will get failures after the expiry.
> >>>>>>>>> * A keytab (used by the renewer) are credentials
(user and pass)
> so
> >>>> jobs
> >>>>>>>>> are executed under the keytab in use at that moment
> >>>>>>>>> * Securing keytab in multi tenancy airflow is a
challenge. This
> >> also
> >>>>>>> goes
> >>>>>>>>> for securing connections. This we need to fix at
some point.
> >> Solution
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> now seems to be no multi tenancy.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Kerberos seems harder than it is btw. Still, we
are sometimes
> >> moving
> >>>>>>> away
> >>>>>>>>> from it to OAUTH2 based authentication. This gets
use closer to
> >> cloud
> >>>>>>>>> standards (but we are on prem)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> B.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 17:41, Hitesh Shah <hitesh@apache.org
> <mailto:hitesh@apache.org> <mailto:
> >> hitesh@apache.org <mailto:hitesh@apache.org>> <mailto:
> >>>> hitesh@apache.org <mailto:hitesh@apache.org> <mailto:
> hitesh@apache.org <mailto:hitesh@apache.org>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Taylor
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> +1 on upstreaming this. It would be great if
you can submit a
> pull
> >>>>>>>>> request
> >>>>>>>>>> to enhance the apache airflow docs.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> thanks
> >>>>>>>>>> Hitesh
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 2:32 PM Taylor Edmiston
<
> >>>> tedmiston@gmail.com <mailto:tedmiston@gmail.com> <mailto:
> tedmiston@gmail.com <mailto:tedmiston@gmail.com>> <mailto:
> >> tedmiston@gmail.com <mailto:tedmiston@gmail.com> <mailto:
> tedmiston@gmail.com <mailto:tedmiston@gmail.com>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> While we're on the topic, I'd love any feedback
from Bolke or
> >>>> others
> >>>>>>>>> who've
> >>>>>>>>>>> used Kerberos with Airflow on this quick
guide I put together
> >>>>>>> yesterday.
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's similar to what's in the Airflow docs
but instead all on
> one
> >>>> page
> >>>>>>>>>>> and slightly
> >>>>>>>>>>> expanded.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> https://github.com/astronomerio/airflow-guides/blob/master/guides/kerberos.md
> <
> https://github.com/astronomerio/airflow-guides/blob/master/guides/kerberos.md
> >
> >> <
> >>
> https://github.com/astronomerio/airflow-guides/blob/master/guides/kerberos.md
> <
> https://github.com/astronomerio/airflow-guides/blob/master/guides/kerberos.md
> >
> >>>
> >>>> <
> >>>>
> >>
> https://github.com/astronomerio/airflow-guides/blob/master/guides/kerberos.md
> <
> https://github.com/astronomerio/airflow-guides/blob/master/guides/kerberos.md
> >
> >> <
> >>
> https://github.com/astronomerio/airflow-guides/blob/master/guides/kerberos.md
> <
> https://github.com/astronomerio/airflow-guides/blob/master/guides/kerberos.md
> >
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> (or web version <https://www.astronomer.io/guides/kerberos/
<
> https://www.astronomer.io/guides/kerberos/> <
> >> https://www.astronomer.io/guides/kerberos/ <
> https://www.astronomer.io/guides/kerberos/>>>)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> One thing I'd like to add is a minimal example
of how to
> >> Kerberize
> >>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> hook.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'd be happy to upstream this as well if
it's useful (maybe a
> >>>>>>> Concepts >
> >>>>>>>>>>> Additional Functionality > Kerberos page?)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Taylor
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> *Taylor Edmiston*
> >>>>>>>>>>> Blog <https://blog.tedmiston.com/ <https://blog.tedmiston.com/>
> <https://blog.tedmiston.com/ <https://blog.tedmiston.com/>>>
> >> | CV
> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://stackoverflow.com/cv/taylor
<
> https://stackoverflow.com/cv/taylor> <
> >> https://stackoverflow.com/cv/taylor <
> https://stackoverflow.com/cv/taylor>>> | LinkedIn
> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tedmiston/
<
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/tedmiston/> <
> >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/tedmiston/ <
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/tedmiston/>>> | AngelList
> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://angel.co/taylor <https://angel.co/taylor>
<
> https://angel.co/taylor <https://angel.co/taylor>>> | Stack
> >> Overflow
> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://stackoverflow.com/users/149428/taylor-edmiston
<
> https://stackoverflow.com/users/149428/taylor-edmiston> <
> >> https://stackoverflow.com/users/149428/taylor-edmiston <
> https://stackoverflow.com/users/149428/taylor-edmiston>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Driesprong,
Fokko
> >>>>>>> <fokko@driesprong.frl <mailto:fokko@driesprong.frl>
<mailto:
> fokko@driesprong.frl <mailto:fokko@driesprong.frl>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ry,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You should ask Bolke de Bruin. He's
really experienced with
> >>>> Kerberos
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> he
> >>>>>>>>>>>> did also the implementation for Airflow.
Beside that he worked
> >>>> also
> >>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> implementing Kerberos in Ambari. Just
want to let you know.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, Fokko
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Op do 26 jul. 2018 om 23:03 schreef
Ry Walker <
> ry@astronomer.io <mailto:ry@astronomer.io>
> >> <mailto:ry@astronomer.io <mailto:ry@astronomer.io>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We have several bigCo's who are
considering using Airflow
> >> asking
> >>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>>>>>> its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> support for Kerberos.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We're going to work on a proof-of-concept
next week, will
> >> likely
> >>>>>>>>>>> record a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> screencast on it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For now, we're looking for any anecdotal
information from
> >>>>>>>>> organizations
> >>>>>>>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are using Kerberos with Airflow,
if anyone would be willing
> to
> >>>> share
> >>>>>>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences here, or reply to me
personally, it would be
> >> greatly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciated!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Ry
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Ry Walker* | CEO, Astronomer <http://www.astronomer.io/
<
> http://www.astronomer.io/> <
> >> http://www.astronomer.io/ <http://www.astronomer.io/>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 513.417.2163 |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @rywalker <http://twitter.com/rywalker
<
> http://twitter.com/rywalker> <
> >> http://twitter.com/rywalker <http://twitter.com/rywalker>>> | LinkedIn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/rywalker
<
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/rywalker> <
> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/rywalker <
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/rywalker>>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message