yuqi1129 opened a new issue, #13090:
URL: https://github.com/apache/gravitino/issues/13090

   ### Describe the subtask
   
   #9087 scoped metadata authorization to auxiliary mode and left standalone 
per-user identity out of scope. This subtask opens that track.
   
   Today standalone Lance REST authenticates the caller and then makes every 
Gravitino call as one configured service account 
(`gravitino.lance-rest.gravitino-auth-type` = `simple` / `oauth2`). Unlike 
Iceberg REST — which only reads catalog configuration through its Gravitino 
client and does all metadata work against the backend catalog — Lance REST 
performs its metadata *writes* through Gravitino, so a service account means 
every table is owned by `lance-rest-server`, audit never records the real user, 
and Gravitino's privilege model does not apply to Lance users.
   
   The plan, in order:
   
   1. Forward the caller's credentials per request (sub-issue below; PR 
#12984). Lands after #12954 so the auth documentation is in place; the 
`LanceExceptionMapper` conflict resolves in favour of #12954 (no stack traces 
in 401/403).
   2. Fix the client bootstrap so the first caller's credentials are not used 
to load the metalake (#12985).
   3. Document and then close the authorization-semantics gap between the two 
modes (#13089).
   4. Replace raw credential replay with token exchange, which removes the 
Kerberos and dual-audience limits and stops Lance REST acting as a credential 
relay.
   
   Step 1 is deliberately an intermediate state: it is the smallest change that 
makes Gravitino's ownership, audit and privilege model apply to standalone 
Lance users, and its `AuthDataProvider.getRequestHeaders()` extension point is 
the seam step 4 plugs into.
   
   ### Parent issue
   
   #9087
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to