mesos-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam B" <a...@mesosphere.io>
Subject Re: Review Request 27760: Revised authenticator interface to allow for two fold implementations.
Date Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:41:55 GMT


> On Feb. 16, 2015, 11:37 p.m., Adam B wrote:
> > src/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.hpp, line 533
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/diff/14/?file=863170#file863170line533>
> >
> >     Should this still `process::terminate(process, false)` if the short term fix
is now in `~CRAMMD5AuthenticatorSession`? The 'false' injects the 'terminate' at the end of
the process' queue, so other in-flight events get handled first (semi-graceful shutdown).
> 
> Till Toenshoff wrote:
>     Correct, I think it should be a regular terminate at this point now (getting pushed
into the front of the queue).

>From the description of MESOS-1866, I understand the race to apply to destruction of the
session, not the entire master/authenticator. The double-future approach might even fix this
somehow. I'd have to dig deeper.
Unfortunately, MESOS-1866 Race 1 never had a unit test written for it, so there's no way to
test that we aren't regressing. Maybe @vinodkone can comment on the previous race and help
us determine if we're maintaining/improving the proper behavior.


> On Feb. 16, 2015, 11:37 p.m., Adam B wrote:
> > src/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.hpp, line 545
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/diff/14/?file=863170#file863170line545>
> >
> >     What's the reasoning for this being a `static*`? Why wouldn't a plain old `Option<Error>`
work?
> 
> Till Toenshoff wrote:
>     That way, if an error occured in the "once"-covered case, then any additional calls
to initialize (e.g. by another instance) would still have access to that former, "once"-covered
error and be able to return it.

Okay, makes sense. Worth a comment?


- Adam


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#review72680
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 17, 2015, 7:57 p.m., Till Toenshoff wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 17, 2015, 7:57 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Kapil Arya, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2050
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2050
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The initial design and implementation of the authenticator module interface caused issues
and was not optimal for heavy lifting setup of external dependencies. By introducing a two
fold design, this has been decoupled from the authentication message processing. The new design
also gets us back on track to the goal of makeing SASL a soft dependency of mesos.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/authentication/authenticator.hpp f66217a 
>   src/Makefile.am d372404 
>   src/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.hpp 7578ea1 
>   src/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/authentication/cram_md5/auxprop.hpp d036b11 
>   src/authentication/cram_md5/auxprop.cpp 5ff9755 
>   src/master/master.hpp 6a39df0 
>   src/master/master.cpp f10a3cf 
>   src/tests/cram_md5_authentication_tests.cpp dd102dc 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Till Toenshoff
> 
>


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