hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Colin P. McCabe" <cmcc...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Hadoop encryption module as Apache Chimera incubator project
Date Tue, 02 Feb 2016 20:55:33 GMT
It's great to see interest in improving this functionality.  I think
Chimera could be successful as an Apache project.  I don't have a
strong opinion one way or the other as to whether it belongs as part
of Hadoop or separate.

I do think there will be some challenges splitting this functionality
out into a separate jar, because of the way our CLASSPATH works right
now.  For example, let's say that Hadoop depends on Chimera 1.2 and
Spark depends on Chimera 1.1.  Now Spark jobs have two different
versions fighting it out on the classpath, similar to the situation
with Guava and other libraries.  Perhaps if Chimera adopts a policy of
strong backwards compatibility, we can just always use the latest jar,
but it still seems likely that there will be problems.  There are
various classpath isolation ideas that could help here, but they are
big projects in their own right and we don't have a clear timeline for
them.  If this does end up being a separate jar, we may need to shade
it to avoid all these issues.

Bundling the JNI glue code in the jar itself is an interesting idea,
which we have talked about before for libhadoop.so.  It doesn't really
have anything to do with the question of TLP vs. non-TLP, of course.
We could do that refactoring in Hadoop itself.  The really complicated
part of bundling JNI code in a jar is that you need to create jars for
every cross product of (JVM version, openssl version, operating
system).  For example, you have the RHEL6 build for openJDK7 using
openssl 1.0.1e.  If you change any one thing-- say, change openJDK7 to
Oracle JDK8, then you might need to rebuild.  And certainly using
Ubuntu would be a rebuild.  And so forth.  This kind of clashes with
Maven's philosophy of pulling prebuilt jars from the internet.

Kai Zheng's question about whether we would bundle openSSL's libraries
is a good one.  Given the high rate of new vulnerabilities discovered
in that library, it seems like bundling would require Hadoop users and
vendors to update very frequently, much more frequently than Hadoop is
traditionally updated.  So probably we would not choose to bundle
openssl.

best,
Colin

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org> wrote:
> As a subproject of Hadoop, Chimera could maintain its own cadence.
> There's also no reason why it should maintain dependencies on other
> parts of Hadoop, if those are separable. How is this solution
> inadequate?
>
> If Chimera is not successful as an independent project or stalls,
> Hadoop and/or Spark and/or $project will have to reabsorb it as
> maintainers. Projects have high mortality in early life, and a fight
> over inheritance/maintenance is something we'd like to avoid. If, on
> the other hand, it develops enough of a community where it is
> obviously viable, then we can (and should) break it out as a TLP (as
> we have before). If other Apache projects take a dependency on
> Chimera, we're open to adding them to security@hadoop.
>
> Unlike Yetus, which was largely rewritten right before it was made
> into a TLP, security in Hadoop has a complicated pedigree. If Chimera
> eventually becomes a TLP, it seems fair to include those who work on
> it while it is a subproject. Declared upfront, that criterion is
> fairer than any post hoc justification, and will lead to a more
> accurate account of its community than a subset of the Hadoop
> PMC/committers that volunteer. -C
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Chen, Haifeng <haifeng.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>> Thanks to all folks providing feedbacks and participating the discussions.
>>
>> @Owen, do you still have any concerns on going forward in the direction of Apache
Commons (or other options, TLP)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Haifeng
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chen, Haifeng [mailto:haifeng.chen@intel.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 10:52 AM
>> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Hadoop encryption module as Apache Chimera incubator project
>>
>>>> I believe encryption is becoming a core part of Hadoop. I think that
>>>> moving core components out of Hadoop is bad from a project management perspective.
>>
>>> Although it's certainly true that encryption capabilities (in HDFS, YARN, etc.)
are becoming core to Hadoop, I don't think that should really influence whether or not the
non-Hadoop-specific encryption routines should be part of the Hadoop code base, or part of
the code base of another project that Hadoop depends on. If Chimera had existed as a library
hosted at ASF when HDFS encryption was first developed, HDFS probably would have just added
that as a dependency and been done with it. I don't think we would've copy/pasted the code
for Chimera into the Hadoop code base.
>>
>> Agree with ATM. I want to also make an additional clarification. I agree that the
encryption capabilities are becoming core to Hadoop. While this effort is to put common and
shared encryption routines such as crypto stream implementations into a scope which can be
widely shared across the Apache ecosystem. This doesn't move Hadoop encryption out of Hadoop
(that is not possible).
>>
>> Agree if we make it a separate and independent releases project in Hadoop takes a
step further than the existing approach and solve some issues (such as libhadoop.so problem).
Frankly speaking, I think it is not the best option we can try. I also expect that an independent
release project within Hadoop core will also complicate the existing release ideology of Hadoop
release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Haifeng
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aaron T. Myers [mailto:atm@cloudera.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:51 AM
>> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Hadoop encryption module as Apache Chimera incubator project
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Owen O'Malley <omalley@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe encryption is becoming a core part of Hadoop. I think that
>>> moving core components out of Hadoop is bad from a project management perspective.
>>>
>>
>> Although it's certainly true that encryption capabilities (in HDFS, YARN,
>> etc.) are becoming core to Hadoop, I don't think that should really influence whether
or not the non-Hadoop-specific encryption routines should be part of the Hadoop code base,
or part of the code base of another project that Hadoop depends on. If Chimera had existed
as a library hosted at ASF when HDFS encryption was first developed, HDFS probably would have
just added that as a dependency and been done with it. I don't think we would've copy/pasted
the code for Chimera into the Hadoop code base.
>>
>>
>>> To put it another way, a bug in the encryption routines will likely
>>> become a security problem that security@hadoop needs to hear about.
>>>
>> I don't think
>>> adding a separate project in the middle of that communication chain is
>>> a good idea. The same applies to data corruption problems, and so on...
>>>
>>
>> Isn't the same true of all the libraries that Hadoop currently depends upon? If the
commons-httpclient library (or commons-codec, or commons-io, or guava, or...) has a security
vulnerability, we need to know about it so that we can update our dependency to a fixed version.
This case doesn't seem materially different than that.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > It may be good to keep at generalized place(As in the discussion, we
>>> > thought that place could be Apache Commons).
>>>
>>>
>>> Apache Commons is a collection of *Java* projects, so Chimera as a
>>> JNI-based library isn't a natural fit.
>>>
>>
>> Could very well be that Apache Commons's charter would preclude Chimera.
>> You probably know better than I do about that.
>>
>>
>>> Furthermore, Apache Commons doesn't
>>> have its own security list so problems will go to the generic
>>> security@apache.org.
>>>
>>
>> That seems easy enough to remedy, if they wanted to, and besides I'm not sure why
that would influence this discussion. In my experience projects that don't have a separate
security@project.a.o mailing list tend to just handle security issues on their private@project.a.o
mailing list, which seems fine to me.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Why do you think that Apache Commons is a better home than Hadoop?
>>>
>>
>> I'm certainly not at all wedded to Apache Commons, that just seemed like a natural
place to put it to me. Could be that a brand new TLP might make more sense.
>>
>> I *do* think that if other non-Hadoop projects want to make use of Chimera, which
as I understand it is the goal which started this thread, then Chimera should exist outside
of Hadoop so that:
>>
>> a) Projects that have nothing to do with Hadoop can just depend directly on Chimera,
which has nothing Hadoop-specific in there.
>>
>> b) The Hadoop project doesn't have to export/maintain/concern itself with yet another
publicly-consumed interface.
>>
>> c) Chimera can have its own (presumably much faster) release cadence completely separate
from Hadoop.
>>
>> --
>> Aaron T. Myers
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera

Mime
View raw message