Here is the exact class, I'm from mobile so not had a look at the exact class name: https://github.com/gaborgsomogyi/flink/blob/8ab75e46013f159778ccfce52463e7bc63e395a9/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmaster/JobMaster.java#L176 That keeps track of TMs where the tokens can be sent to.
> My feeling would be that we shouldn't really introduce a new component with a custom lifecycle, but rather we should try to incorporate this into existing ones. Can you be more specific? Presume you though I would implement a new class with JobManager name. The plan is not that. > If I understand this correctly, this means that we then push the token renewal logic to YARN. No. That said earlier DT handling is planned to be done completely in Flink. DTM has a renewal thread which re-obtains tokens in the proper time when needed. YARN log aggregation is a totally different feature, where YARN does the renewal. Log aggregation was an example why the code can't be 100% reusable for all resource managers. Reading the linked Spark readme could be useful. G On Fri, 21 Jan 2022, 21:05 David Morávek, <d...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > JobManager is the Flink class. > > > There is no such class in Flink. The closest thing to the JobManager is a > ClusterEntrypoint. The cluster entrypoint spawns new RM Runner & Dispatcher > Runner that start participating in the leader election. Once they gain > leadership they spawn the actual underlying instances of these two "main > components". > > My feeling would be that we shouldn't really introduce a new component with > a custom lifecycle, but rather we should try to incorporate this into > existing ones. > > My biggest concerns would be: > > - How would the lifecycle of the new component look like with regards to HA > setups. If we really try to decide to introduce a completely new component, > how should this work in case of multiple JobManager instances? > - Which components does it talk to / how? For example how does the > broadcast of new token to task managers (TaskManagerGateway) look like? Do > we simply introduce a new RPC on the ResourceManagerGateway that broadcasts > it or does the new component need to do some kind of bookkeeping of task > managers that it needs to notify? > > YARN based HDFS log aggregation would not work by dropping that code. Just > > to be crystal clear, the actual implementation contains this fir exactly > > this reason. > > > > This is the missing part +1. If I understand this correctly, this means > that we then push the token renewal logic to YARN. How do you plan to > implement the renewal logic on k8s? > > D. > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 8:37 PM Gabor Somogyi <gabor.g.somo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I think we might both mean something different by the RM. > > > > You feel it well, I've not specified these terms well in the explanation. > > RM I meant resource management framework. JobManager is the Flink class. > > This means that inside JM instance there will be a DTM instance, so they > > would have the same lifecycle. Hope I've answered the question. > > > > > If we have tokens available on the client side, why do we need to set > > them > > into the AM (yarn specific concept) launch context? > > > > YARN based HDFS log aggregation would not work by dropping that code. > Just > > to be crystal clear, the actual implementation contains this fir exactly > > this reason. > > > > G > > > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2022, 20:12 David Morávek, <d...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Gabor, > > > > > > 1. One thing is important, token management is planned to be done > > > > generically within Flink and not scattered in RM specific code. > > > JobManager > > > > has a DelegationTokenManager which obtains tokens time-to-time (if > > > > configured properly). JM knows which TaskManagers are in place so it > > can > > > > distribute it to all TMs. That's it basically. > > > > > > > > > I think we might both mean something different by the RM. JobManager is > > > basically just a process encapsulating multiple components, one of > which > > is > > > a ResourceManager, which is the component that manages task manager > > > registrations [1]. There is more or less a single implementation of the > > RM > > > with plugable drivers for the active integrations (yarn, k8s). > > > > > > It would be great if you could share more details of how exactly the > DTM > > is > > > going to fit in the current JM architecture. > > > > > > 2. 99.9% of the code is generic but each RM handles tokens > differently. A > > > > good example is YARN obtains tokens on client side and then sets them > > on > > > > the newly created AM container launch context. This is purely YARN > > > specific > > > > and cant't be spared. With my actual plans standalone can be changed > to > > > use > > > > the framework. By using it I mean no RM specific DTM or whatsoever is > > > > needed. > > > > > > > > > > If we have tokens available on the client side, why do we need to set > > them > > > into the AM (yarn specific concept) launch context? Why can't we simply > > > send them to the JM, eg. as a parameter of the job submission / via > > > separate RPC call? There might be something I'm missing due to limited > > > knowledge, but handling the token on the "cluster framework" level > > doesn't > > > seem necessary. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-docs-release-1.14/docs/concepts/flink-architecture/#jobmanager > > > > > > Best, > > > D. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 7:48 PM Gabor Somogyi < > gabor.g.somo...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Oh and one more thing. I'm planning to add this feature in small > chunk > > of > > > > PRs because security is super hairy area. That way reviewers can be > > more > > > > easily obtains the concept. > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2022, 18:03 David Morávek, <d...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Gabor, > > > > > > > > > > thanks for drafting the FLIP, I think having a solid Kerberos > support > > > is > > > > > crucial for many enterprise deployments. > > > > > > > > > > I have multiple questions regarding the implementation (note that I > > > have > > > > > very limited knowledge of Kerberos): > > > > > > > > > > 1) If I understand it correctly, we'll only obtain tokens in the > job > > > > > manager and then we'll distribute them via RPC (needs to be > secured). > > > > > > > > > > Can you please outline how the communication will look like? Is the > > > > > DelegationTokenManager going to be a part of the ResourceManager? > Can > > > you > > > > > outline it's lifecycle / how it's going to be integrated there? > > > > > > > > > > 2) Do we really need a YARN / k8s specific implementations? Is it > > > > possible > > > > > to obtain / renew a token in a generic way? Maybe to rephrase that, > > is > > > it > > > > > possible to implement DelegationTokenManager for the standalone > > Flink? > > > If > > > > > we're able to solve this point, it could be possible to target all > > > > > deployment scenarios with a single implementation. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:47 AM Junfan Zhang < > > zuston.sha...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi G > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your explain in detail. I have gotten your thoughts, > and > > > any > > > > > > way this proposal > > > > > > is a great improvement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your implementation and i will keep focus on > it. > > > > > > Thanks again. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > JunFan. > > > > > > On Jan 13, 2022, 9:20 PM +0800, Gabor Somogyi < > > > > gabor.g.somo...@gmail.com > > > > > >, > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Just to confirm keeping > > "security.kerberos.fetch.delegation-token" > > > is > > > > > > added > > > > > > > to the doc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > G > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:34 PM Gabor Somogyi < > > > > > gabor.g.somo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi JunFan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, maybe this should be added in the migration > plan > > or > > > > > > > > intergation section in the FLIP-211. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Going to add this soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides, I have a question that the KDC will collapse when > > the > > > > > > cluster > > > > > > > > reached 200 nodes you described > > > > > > > > in the google doc. Do you have any attachment or reference to > > > prove > > > > > it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "KDC *may* collapse under some circumstances" is the proper > > > > wording. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have several customers who are executing workloads on > > > > Spark/Flink. > > > > > > Most > > > > > > > > of the time I'm facing their > > > > > > > > daily issues which is heavily environment and use-case > > dependent. > > > > > I've > > > > > > > > seen various cases: > > > > > > > > * where the mentioned ~1k nodes were working fine > > > > > > > > * where KDC thought the number of requests are coming from > DDOS > > > > > attack > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > discontinued authentication > > > > > > > > * where KDC was simply not responding because of the load > > > > > > > > * where KDC was intermittently had some outage (this was the > > most > > > > > nasty > > > > > > > > thing) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since you're managing relatively big cluster then you know > that > > > KDC > > > > > is > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > only used by Spark/Flink workloads > > > > > > > > but the whole company IT infrastructure is bombing it so it > > > really > > > > > > depends > > > > > > > > on other factors too whether KDC is reaching > > > > > > > > it's limit or not. Not sure what kind of evidence are you > > looking > > > > for > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > I'm not authorized to share any information about > > > > > > > > our clients data. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing is for sure. The more external system types are > used > > in > > > > > > > > workloads (for ex. HDFS, HBase, Hive, Kafka) which > > > > > > > > are authenticating through KDC the more possibility to reach > > this > > > > > > > > threshold when the cluster is big enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All in all this feature is here to help all users never reach > > > this > > > > > > > > limitation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > > G > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:00 PM 张俊帆 <zuston.sha...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi G > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your quick reply. I think reserving the config > of > > > > > > > > > *security.kerberos.fetch.delegation-token* > > > > > > > > > and simplifying disable the token fetching is a good > idea.By > > > the > > > > > way, > > > > > > > > > maybe this should be added > > > > > > > > > in the migration plan or intergation section in the > FLIP-211. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides, I have a question that the KDC will collapse when > > the > > > > > > cluster > > > > > > > > > reached 200 nodes you described > > > > > > > > > in the google doc. Do you have any attachment or reference > to > > > > prove > > > > > > it? > > > > > > > > > Because in our internal per-cluster, > > > > > > > > > the nodes reaches > 1000 and KDC looks good. Do i missed or > > > > > > misunderstood > > > > > > > > > something? Please correct me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > > JunFan. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 2022, 5:26 PM +0800, dev@flink.apache.org, > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JzMbQ1pCJsLVz8yHrCxroYMRP2GwGwvacLrGyaIx5Yc/edit?fbclid=IwAR0vfeJvAbEUSzHQAAJfnWTaX46L6o7LyXhMfBUCcPrNi-uXNgoOaI8PMDQ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
