lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Oakley, Craig (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]" <craig.oak...@nih.gov>
Subject RE: Authorization API versus zkcli.sh
Date Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:32:28 GMT
So, when one has finished constructing the desired security.json (by means of Authentication
and Authorization commands) and then run "zkcli.sh -cmd getfile" to get this security.json
in order for it to be used as a template: one should edit the template to remove this "":{"v":85}
clause (and the comma which precedes it): correct?

I notice that the documented minimal security.json which simply creates the solr:SolrRocks
login:pswd does not have such a clause: so I assume that the lack of such a clause is not
an error.

________________________________________
From: Anshum Gupta [anshum@anshumgupta.net]
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 9:48 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Authorization API versus zkcli.sh

yes, that's the assumption. The reason why there's a version there is to
optimize on reloads i.e. Authentication and Authorization plugins are
reloaded only when the version number is changed. e.g.
* Start with Ver 1 for both authentication and authorization
* Make changes to Authentication, the version for this section is updated
to the znode version, while the version for the authorization section is
not changed. This forces the authentication plugin to be reloaded but not
the authorization plugin. Similarly for authorization.

It's a way to optimize the reloads without splitting the definition into 2
znodes, which is also an option.


On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar <
shalinmangar@gmail.com> wrote:

> Shouldn't this be the znode version? Why put a version in
> security.json? Or is the idea that the user will upload security.json
> only once and then use the security APIs for all further changes?
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Noble Paul <noble.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please do not put any number. That number is used by the system to
> > optimize loading/reloading plugins. It is not relevant for the user.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Oakley, Craig (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
> > <craig.oakley@nih.gov> wrote:
> >> Looking at security.json in Zookeeper, I notice that both the
> authentication section and the authorization section ends with something
> like
> >>
> >> "":{"v":47}},
> >>
> >> Am I correct in thinking that this 47 (in this case) is a version
> number, and that ANY number could be used in the file uploaded to
> security.json using "zkcli.sh -putfile"?
> >>
> >> Or is this some sort of checksum whose value must match some unclear
> criteria?
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Anshum Gupta [mailto:anshum@anshumgupta.net]
> >> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 8:42 AM
> >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Authorization API versus zkcli.sh
> >>
> >> There's nothing cluster specific in security.json if you're using those
> >> plugins. It is totally safe to just take the file from one cluster and
> >> upload it for another for things to work.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 3:38 AM, Oakley, Craig (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] <
> >> craig.oakley@nih.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Looking through
> >>>
> cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Authentication+and+Authorization+Plugins
> >>> one notices that security.json is initially created by zkcli.sh, and
> then
> >>> modified by means of the Authentication API and the Authorization API.
> By
> >>> and large, this sounds like a good way to accomplish such tasks,
> assuming
> >>> that these APIs do some error checking to prevent corruption of
> >>> security.json
> >>>
> >>> I was wondering about cases where one is cloning an existing Solr
> >>> instance, such as when creating an instance in Amazon Cloud. If one
> has a
> >>> security.json that has been thoroughly tried and successfully tested on
> >>> another Solr instance, is it possible / safe / not-un-recommended to
> use
> >>> zkcli.sh to load the full security.json (as extracted via zkcli.sh
> from the
> >>> Zookeeper of the thoroughly tested existing instance)? Or would the
> >>> official verdict be that the only acceptable way to create
> security.json is
> >>> to load a minimal version with zkcli.sh and then to build the remaining
> >>> components with the Authentication API and the Authorization API (in a
> >>> script, if one wants to automate the process: although such a script
> would
> >>> have to include plain-text passwords)?
> >>>
> >>> I figured there is no harm in asking.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Anshum Gupta
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Noble Paul
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
>



--
Anshum Gupta
Mime
View raw message