Hi Alejandro, Thanks for our summary and points. No correction I'm having and just some updates from our side for further discussion.
> we should make sure that UserGroupInformation and RPC security logic work > with a pluggable GSS implementation. Right. I'm working on implementing a token authn method in current Hadoop RPC and SASL framework, and changing the UGI class. > Create a common security component ie 'hadoop-security' to be 'the' security > lib for all projects to use. Sure we will put our codes for the new AuthN & AuthZ frameworks into the 'hadoop-security' component for the ecosystem. I guess this component should be a collection of related projects and it's in line with hadoop-common right? As we might agree that the key to all of these is to implement the token authentication method for client to service to start with. Hopefully I can finish and provide my working codes as a patch for the discussion. Thanks & regards, Kai -----Original Message----- From: Alejandro Abdelnur [mailto:t...@cloudera.com] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 4:09 AM To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop SSO/Token Server Components Leaving JIRAs and design docs aside, my recollection from the f2f lounge discussion could be summarized as: ------ 1* Decouple users-services authentication from (intra) services-services authentication. The main motivation for this is to get pluggable authentication and integrated SSO experience for users. (we never discussed if this is needed for external-apps talking with Hadoop) 2* We should leave the Hadoop delegation tokens alone No need to make this pluggable as this is an internal authentication mechanism after the 'real' authentication happened. (this is independent from factoring out all classes we currently have into a common implementation for Hadoop and other projects to use) 3* Being able to replace kerberos with something else for (intra) services-services authentication. It was suggested that to support deployments where stock Kerberos may not be an option (i.e. cloud) we should make sure that UserGroupInformation and RPC security logic work with a pluggable GSS implementation. 4* Create a common security component ie 'hadoop-security' to be 'the' security lib for all projects to use. Create a component/project that would provide the common security pieces for all projects to use. ------ If we agree with this, after any necessary corrections, I think we could distill clear goals from it and start from there. Thanks. Tucu & Alejandro On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Larry (and all), > > Happy Fourth of July to you and yours. > > In our shop Kai and Tianyou are already doing the coding, so I'd defer > to them on the detailed points. > > My concern here is there may have been a misinterpretation or lack of > consensus on what is meant by "clean slate". Hopefully that can be > quickly cleared up. Certainly we did not mean ignore all that came > before. The idea was to reset discussions to find common ground and > new direction where we are working together, not in conflict, on an > agreed upon set of design points and tasks. There's been a lot of good > discussion and design preceeding that we should figure out how to port > over. Nowhere in this picture are self appointed "master JIRAs" and > such, which have been disappointing to see crop up, we should be > collaboratively coding not planting flags. > > I read Kai's latest document as something approaching today's > consensus (or at least a common point of view?) rather than a historical > document. > Perhaps he and it can be given equal share of the consideration. > > > On Wednesday, July 3, 2013, Larry McCay wrote: > > > Hey Andrew - > > > > I largely agree with that statement. > > My intention was to let the differences be worked out within the > > individual components once they were identified and subtasks created. > > > > My reference to HSSO was really referring to a SSO *server* based > > design which was not clearly articulated in the earlier documents. > > We aren't trying to compare and contrast one design over another anymore. > > > > Let's move this collaboration along as we've mapped out and the > > differences in the details will reveal themselves and be addressed > > within their components. > > > > I've actually been looking forward to you weighing in on the actual > > discussion points in this thread. > > Could you do that? > > > > At this point, I am most interested in your thoughts on a single > > jira to represent all of this work and whether we should start > > discussing the SSO Tokens. > > If you think there are discussion points missing from that list, > > feel > free > > to add to it. > > > > thanks, > > > > --larry > > > > On Jul 3, 2013, at 7:35 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Larry, > > > > > > Of course I'll let Kai speak for himself. However, let me point > > > out > that, > > > while the differences between the competing JIRAs have been > > > reduced for sure, there were some key differences that didn't just > > > disappear. > > > Subsequent discussion will make that clear. I also disagree with > > > your characterization that we have simply endorsed all of the > > > design > decisions > > > of the so-called HSSO, this is taking a mile from an inch. We are > > > here > to > > > engage in a collaborative process as peers. I've been encouraged > > > by the spirit of the discussions up to this point and hope that > > > can continue beyond one design summit. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Larry McCay > > > <lmc...@hortonworks.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Kai - > > >> > > >> I think that I need to clarify something... > > >> > > >> This is not an update for 9533 but a continuation of the > > >> discussions > > that > > >> are focused on a fresh look at a SSO for Hadoop. > > >> We've agreed to leave our previous designs behind and therefore > > >> we > > aren't > > >> really seeing it as an HSSO layered on top of TAS approach or an > > >> HSSO > vs > > >> TAS discussion. > > >> > > >> Your latest design revision actually makes it clear that you are > > >> now targeting exactly what was described as HSSO - so comparing > > >> and > > contrasting > > >> is not going to add any value. > > >> > > >> What we need you to do at this point, is to look at those > > >> high-level components described on this thread and comment on > > >> whether we need additional components or any that are listed that > > >> don't seem necessary > > to > > >> you and why. > > >> In other words, we need to define and agree on the work that has > > >> to be done. > > >> > > >> We also need to determine those components that need to be done > > >> before anything else can be started. > > >> I happen to agree with Brian that #4 Hadoop SSO Tokens are > > >> central to > > all > > >> the other components and should probably be defined and POC'd in > > >> short order. > > >> > > >> Personally, I think that continuing the separation of 9533 and > > >> 9392 > will > > >> do this effort a disservice. There doesn't seem to be enough > differences > > >> between the two to justify separate jiras anymore. It may be best > > >> to > > file a > > >> new one that reflects a single vision without the extra cruft > > >> that has built up in either of the existing ones. We would > > >> certainly reference > > the > > >> existing ones within the new one. This approach would align with > > >> the > > spirit > > >> of the discussions up to this point. > > >> > > >> I am prepared to start a discussion around the shape of the two > > >> Hadoop > > SSO > > >> tokens: identity and access. If this is what others feel the next > topic > > >> should be. > > >> If we can identify a jira home for it, we can do it there - > > >> otherwise > we > > >> can create another DISCUSS thread for it. > > >> > > >> thanks, > > >> > > >> --larry > > >> > > >> > > >> On Jul 3, 2013, at 2:39 PM, "Zheng, Kai" <kai.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Larry, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for the update. Good to see that with this update we are > > >>> now > > >> aligned on most points. > > >>> > > >>> I have also updated our TokenAuth design in HADOOP-9392. The new > > >> revision incorporates feedback and suggestions in related > > >> discussion > > with > > >> the community, particularly from Microsoft and others attending > > >> the Security design lounge session at the Hadoop summit. Summary > > >> of the > > changes: > > >>> 1. Revised the approach to now use two tokens, Identity Token plus > > >> Access Token, particularly considering our authorization > > >> framework and compatibility with HSSO; > > >>> 2. Introduced Authorization Server (AS) from our authorization > > >> framework into the flow that issues access tokens for clients > > >> with > > identity > > >> tokens to access services; > > >>> 3. Refined proxy access token and the proxy/impersonation flow; > > >>> 4. Refined the browser web SSO flow regarding access to Hadoop web > > >> services; > > >>> 5. Added Hadoop RPC access flow regard > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein (via Tom White) > -- Alejandro
