Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-mapreduce-issues-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-mapreduce-issues-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 978BD7940 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:27:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 92191 invoked by uid 500); 28 Oct 2011 21:27:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-mapreduce-issues-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 92157 invoked by uid 500); 28 Oct 2011 21:27:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mapreduce-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: mapreduce-issues@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list mapreduce-issues@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 92147 invoked by uid 99); 28 Oct 2011 21:27:56 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:27:56 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.116] (HELO hel.zones.apache.org) (140.211.11.116) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:27:53 +0000 Received: from hel.zones.apache.org (hel.zones.apache.org [140.211.11.116]) by hel.zones.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6969D325458 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:27:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:27:32 +0000 (UTC) From: "Hadoop QA (Commented) (JIRA)" To: mapreduce-issues@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: <43074784.33704.1319837252433.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org> In-Reply-To: <467164022.11991.1319521232147.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org> Subject: [jira] [Commented] (MAPREDUCE-3256) Authorization checks needed for AM->NM protocol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-3256?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13138788#comment-13138788 ] Hadoop QA commented on MAPREDUCE-3256: -------------------------------------- +1 overall. Here are the results of testing the latest attachment http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12501363/MAPREDUCE-3256-20111028.2_same against trunk revision . +1 @author. The patch does not contain any @author tags. +1 tests included. The patch appears to include 10 new or modified tests. +1 javadoc. The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages. +1 javac. The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac compiler warnings. +1 findbugs. The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs (version 1.3.9) warnings. +1 release audit. The applied patch does not increase the total number of release audit warnings. +1 core tests. The patch passed unit tests in . +1 contrib tests. The patch passed contrib unit tests. Test results: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-MAPREDUCE-Build/1197//testReport/ Console output: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-MAPREDUCE-Build/1197//console This message is automatically generated. > Authorization checks needed for AM->NM protocol > ----------------------------------------------- > > Key: MAPREDUCE-3256 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-3256 > Project: Hadoop Map/Reduce > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: applicationmaster, mrv2, nodemanager, security > Affects Versions: 0.23.0 > Reporter: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > Assignee: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > Priority: Blocker > Fix For: 0.23.0 > > Attachments: MAPREDUCE-3256-20111028.1.txt, MAPREDUCE-3256-20111028.2.txt, MAPREDUCE-3256-20111028.2_same > > > We already authenticate requests to NM from any AM. We also need to authorize the requests, otherwise a rogue AM, *but with proper tokens and thus authenticated to talk to NM*, could either launch or kill a container with different ContainerID. We have two options: > - Remove the explicit passing of the ContainerId as part of the API and instead get it from the RPC layer. In this case, we will need a ContainerToken for each container. > - Do explicit authorization checks without relying on getting ContainerID from the RPC. > One ContainerToken per container is a serious restriction. We anyways want to be able to use application-ACLS to, say, stop containers owned by others. So I am going to take the later route of explicit checks. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira