hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Nastetsky <anastet...@spryinc.com>
Subject Re: enable/disable table permission
Date Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:36:38 GMT
Does that indicate to you an abandoned ticket?

I think that HBASE-8409 alone would satisfy my needs because it prevents
other tenants from dropping and altering my tables (the W permission). I
can live with users with dropping and altering tables of other users in the
same namespace.

Do you have another suggested approach?


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was looking at HBASE-9206 : the last comment was 5 months ago.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Alex Nastetsky <anastetsky@spryinc.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Thanks for all that detail. Re: updating documentation, it looks like
> there
> > is a ticket for that: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6192
> >
> > My specific use case is to support secure multi-tenancy. It looks like
> > namespaces is the way to go, and security for them was added in
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8409 with additional
> security
> > being added in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9206.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Gary Helmling <ghelmling@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It looks like how the CREATE permission is applied changed with
> > HBASE-6188,
> > > which removed the concept of a table owner.  Prior to HBASE-6188, the
> > > disable/enable table permission checks required either:
> > >
> > > * ADMIN permission
> > > or
> > > * the user is the table owner AND has the CREATE permission
> > >
> > > I believe the original intent here was that if you created a table, you
> > > should be able to disable and modify it.
> > >
> > > After HBASE-6188, the check in enable/disable table is simply for
> either
> > > ADMIN or CREATE permission.  This seems to be the best compromise on
> > > attempting to maintain some of the previous semantics.
> > >
> > > Andrew Purtell commented to this in HBASE-6188:
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > >
> > > CREATE -(DDL) CreateTable, AddColumn, DeleteColumn, DeleteTable,
> > > ModifyColumn, ModifyTable, DisableTable, EnableTable
> > >
> > > ADMIN - All of the above plus Flush, Split, Compact
> > >
> > > It's not useful to give add/delete/modify schema privileges without
> > > enable/disable to have them take effect. So either we do the above or
> we
> > > get rid of CREATE. I think the above distinction is still useful.
> > >
> > > Edit: I don't like that non-ADMIN can do enable/disable table, because
> it
> > > can really affect the cluster if the table is large. However I think on
> > > balance it would be more confusing than useful to remove EnableTable
> and
> > > DisableTable from the set of operations CREATE permission allows until
> > > online schema update-in-place without disable is always possible.
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > > At this point, it may be useful to discuss if we're at the point yet
> > where
> > > online schema updates can be reliably done without a table disable.  In
> > > this case, it might make sense to drop disable/enable table from CREATE
> > > permission.  Though we now have backwards compatibility to consider as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > If this could be better reflected in the security documentation, please
> > do
> > > open a JIRA describing how we can make it clearer.  And if you feel up
> to
> > > it, a patch or updated text would be even better.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Alex Nastetsky <
> anastetsky@spryinc.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't really understand how HBase permission is expected to work
> > then.
> > > A
> > > > user needs the Create permission in order to be able to create their
> > own
> > > > tables. But that permission also allows them to "drop" and "alter"
> the
> > > > tables created by others. Even if those operations are set up to only
> > > work
> > > > when a table is disabled, the ability to disable a table is also
> given
> > by
> > > > the Create permission. What am I missing?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Alex Nastetsky <
> > anastetsky@spryinc.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sounds like either permission is sufficient. Either way, the
> > > > documentation
> > > > > could be improved.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Here is related code from AccessController:
> > > > >> {code}
> > > > >>   public void
> > > > >> preDisableTable(ObserverContext<MasterCoprocessorEnvironment>
> > > > >> c, byte[] tableName)
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >>     requirePermission("disableTable", tableName, null, null,
> > > > Action.ADMIN,
> > > > >> Action.CREATE);
> > > > >> {code}
> > > > >> requirePermission() iterates through the above permissions and
> would
> > > > >> return
> > > > >> error for the second permission (CREATE) if validation fails.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cheers
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Alex Nastetsky <
> > > > anastetsky@spryinc.com
> > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > According to
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://hbase.apache.org/book/hbase.accesscontrol.configuration.html#d2566e5780
> > > > >> > ,
> > > > >> > the Enable/Disable operation is controlled by the Admin
> > permission.
> > > > >> > However, it seems to be controlled instead by the Create
> > permission.
> > > > Is
> > > > >> > this a bug or a typo in the documentation?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > hbase(main):002:0> disable 'foo'
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ERROR: org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.AccessDeniedException:
> > > > >> Insufficient
> > > > >> > permissions (user=anastetsky@SPRY.COM, scope=foo, family=,
> > > > >> action=CREATE)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks in advance,
> > > > >> > Alex.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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