Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of anastetsky@spryinc.com
 designates 209.85.128.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALte62yGHV5xLMFMJN2etBzcdOAoKZ8ZRShTFo5Pe=2LwXw_PQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAJDd8GG7WjZbet+MY2pU+R8AYjJpmetDUZXHAEk0YG-UaRdhBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALte62wKhZSZ46T3mAsWpj8=JuOsFgao2BKXE5GZeasMs-PhoA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJDd8GHEUhhg=zX=a=_JS6=QLhH3YNazBP4hhQx-t6_URbF=RA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJDd8GHVv3KeuZPr2UhyMAa+itcWnLsRz7sA3N+Guw22QgDaSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADfYSXQv05c0MzH1TLevsODkVpOn5eGxhOHnqTQp8SMfvKtAUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJDd8GHf7Uc5LTWp_nnXbNFje17W8BmR2uJPC8B1-XqgKw8vHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALte62wLtD70N4cPhg3sFcP=SN5SfOQ7-ETnV9PMre=HS8vOZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJDd8GHQVpsweTFQ-5Pzj6jt7=YrK5cOHPAJx9TG2PN7wqj9AA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALte62xTs5bDN9e6tjR__asNa==ooQhhdEJrELEtmSOFc1Ssew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJDd8GETDmxOwTRGkzxrvSovnM8Wsn+=7LkrDkE2ZPU02X9gZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALte62yGHV5xLMFMJN2etBzcdOAoKZ8ZRShTFo5Pe=2LwXw_PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:48:14 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAJDd8GHaaU5iXaPvrmbmuXrsyMBwD7z_VbAKZJzy9u7B5apBXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: enable/disable table permission
From: Alex Nastetsky <anastetsky@spryinc.com>
To: user@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2550c04766404f357000d

--001a11c2550c04766404f357000d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Thanks Ted.

Can you use user X to grant hrt_1 permission to create tables just in the
'ted' namespace (but not in the global namespace)?

I want a user to be able to create their own tables, but not drop the
tables of other users. If I can't have that, then I would settle for not
being able to drop the tables in other namespaces.


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> I created a table 'ted:t1' using user X in a secure cluster.
>
> I then logged in as user hrt_1 and did the following:
>
> hbase(main):007:0> user_permission 'ted:t1'
> User
> Table,Family,Qualifier:Permission
>
> ERROR: org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.AccessDeniedException: Insufficient
> permissions (user=hrt_1@H.NET, scope=ted:t1, family=, action=ADMIN)
> at
>
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.AccessController.requirePermission(AccessController.java:387)
> at
>
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.AccessController.getUserPermissions(AccessController.java:1613)
>
> hbase(main):002:0> disable 'ted:t1'
>
> ERROR: org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.AccessDeniedException: Insufficient
> permissions (user=hrt_1@HORTON.YGRIDCORE.NET, scope=ted:t1, family=,
> action=CREATE)
>
> So your use case is covered.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Alex Nastetsky <anastetsky@spryinc.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I haven't looked at the patch, just the ticket description. Here is an
> > excerpt:
> >
> > Lets see an example on how privileges work with namespaces.
> > > User "Mike" request for a namespace named "hbase_perf" with the hbase
> > > admin.
> > > whoami: hbase
> > > hbase shell >> namespace_create 'hbase_perf'
> > > hbase shell >> grant 'mike', 'W', '@hbase_perf'
> > > Mike creates two tables "table20" and "table50" in the above workspace.
> > > whoami: mike
> > > hbase shell >> create 'hbase_perf.table20', 'family1'
> > > hbase shell >> create 'hbase_perf.table50', 'family1'
> >
> >
> > Are you saying the ability to grant users permission to create tables in
> a
> > namespace is not part of the patch?
> >
> > If it's not, then it does not cover my scenario, as you said. Which would
> > mean that the hope is for it to be implemented in HBASE-9206, which
> > apparently hasn't been touched in 5 months.
> >
> > I can't imagine the scenario for wanting to prevent other users from
> > dropping your table is that uncommon. What's the point of controlling who
> > can Write to your table if anyone can just drop it?
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I went over the patch for HBASE-8409 one more time.
> > > I don't see a test case covering your scenario.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Alex Nastetsky <
> anastetsky@spryinc.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--001a11c2550c04766404f357000d--