mesos-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Omernik <>
Subject Re: Untaring Framework tgzs: Can we customize?
Date Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:00:09 GMT
Vinod -

I believe this is EXACTLY the issue.  I also understand why in most cases
this is ok. If a user is provided, then a fair assumption would be to chown
the extracted archive as that user.  (Assuming the untar is happening as
root in all cases)  So that leads to three components we may want to make
customizable by the framework:

1. Who untars the archive. Right now, it appears root untars the archive
(otherwise, I would imagine that the chown would be unneeded, if the user
untared the archive, the user would already have permissions, thus the
chown would not be needed).  If it is root, perhaps this is "ok" to leave
as is?  Another option may be to set the untar user separate from the
running user, but I am not sure we'd need to if root always untars.

2. Pass a flag from framework that allow a skipping of the chown. For
compatibility sakes, the flag would default to "off" so that it wouldn't
break existing things, but if the framework wanted, they could tell the
slave that the permissions are fine how they are set, and there is no need
to chown.  I am not sure I understand the architecture of Mesos well enough
yet to comment on the best way to do this.  Should it be a framework
variable? (Frameworks would have to be updated to make use of this)  A
string in the filename (could this be abused?)  Etc.

3.  The user that runs the executor.  This is already passed, and I am not
sure we need to change anything here. As long as A. Root untars the
archive, and B. We have the ability to skip the chown, the user stuff
should be perfectly ok as is.  This way, in my case, root would untar the
archive, I could set the skip on chown, and then I'd have the user hadoop
run the framework.  In this model, the LinuxTaskController should work.

Thanks for looking into this, I welcome more thoughts on the subject.


On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Vinod Kone <> wrote:

> IanD: Mind helping John out here?
> My hunch here is that this is because the slave does "chown()" after
> extracting (
> )?
> From POSIX standard, it looks like chown() when invoked by root doesn't
> clear the setuid bit for ordinary files but clears them for other types
> (e.g., binary).
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:17 PM, John Omernik <> wrote:
>> I am wondering about the process of fetching the tgz files and running
>> them on slaves. Basically, I am trying to run hadoop-mesos, but still use
>> the LinuxTaskController (
>> for details).
>> When I am using hadoop, I have to swich to the defaultTaskController
>> because when Mesos untars the tgz, it loses the setuid bit on the binary.
>> I've done a bit of testing around this, and I am unsure why it loses it
>> (even if the running process is root) but it does.
>> Basically, tar by itself works like this: If the user is a super user,
>> tar maintain all permissions that are in the tgz. (I've tested this, when I
>> manually untar with tar zxf myhadoop.tgz it untars properly, including
>> permissions and setuid on the Linux Task Controller.)
>> When I untar as a non-super user, the permissions all get moved to the
>> user that untared it, and the setuid bit is lost. It makes sense from a
>> security point of view.
>> So how does this work in mesos and hadoop?
>> Well, if I run the jobtracker as user hadoop, hadoop is not a super user,
>> all the files in the untared hadooop folder are owned by hadoop:hadoop, and
>> the setuid bit is lost.
>> Ok, next test, well, let's run jobtracker as root, and see what happens.
>>  (remember, when I untared as root, the setuid and all permissions were
>> preserved).   So, when we run JT as root, all the files become root:root,
>> and the setuid bit is lost.  That's weird?  What happened here? (This is
>> where I get lost, perhaps the untar/gzipping isn't using the tar command
>> thus permissions are not preserved like I would expect)
>> Either way, when using the LinuxTaskController, tasktrackers WILL NOT RUN
>> if the setuid bit is not set.  That's a pain, the LinuxTaskController is
>> really nice from an impersonation/security setup with hadoop jobs.  I CAN
>> run  my hadoop framework as hadoop:hadoop, but then I am limited in how
>> things are setup and I get strange permissions issues when trying to run
>> certain jobs as other users.
>> The fix?
>> I am hoping we can have a discussion around this.  As I see it, the
>> slaves are running as root, they have the power to run however we need them
>> to run.  Ideally, I'd like to see the untarring happen with the preserve
>> permissions bit. I.e. the archives for mesos, at the very least having the
>> OPTION to preserve permissions in the tgz. If we could do this, as an
>> option somehow, this would be a win.
>> Also ideally, I don't want to run the framework as root, just untar the
>> tgz as root, preserving permissions.  There is a difference between the
>> action of untarring, and the execution of the framework, and the security
>> nerd in me would like to ensure while the slave COULD run the framework as
>> root, we avoid it if possible.
>> I am not sure how exactly mesos untars things, nor am I aware how hard it
>> would be to do this, but I think from a security perspective, the
>> flexibility that untarting/preserving permissions (especially the setuid
>> bit) would bring Mesos would warrant the dev time.
>> Thoughts?

View raw message