That's not the single purpose of the feature but in some environments it caused problems. The main intention is not to deploy keytab to all the nodes because the attack surface is bigger + reduce the KDC load. I've already described the situation previously in this thread so copying it here.
--------COPY-------- "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. --------COPY-------- > The FLIP mentions scaling issues with 200 nodes; it's really surprising to me that such a small number of requests can already cause issues. One node/task doesn't mean 1 request. The following type of kerberos auth types has been seen by me which can run at the same time: HDFS, Hbase, Hive, Kafka, all DBs (oracle, mariaDB, etc...) Additionally one task is not necessarily opens 1 connection. All in all I don't have steps to reproduce but we've faced this already... G On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 5:15 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote: > What I don't understand is how this could overload the KDC. Aren't > tokens valid for a relatively long time period? > > For new deployments where many TMs are started at once I could imagine > it temporarily, but shouldn't the accesses to the KDC eventually > naturally spread out? > > The FLIP mentions scaling issues with 200 nodes; it's really surprising > to me that such a small number of requests can already cause issues. > > On 03/02/2022 16:14, Gabor Somogyi wrote: > >> I would prefer not choosing the first option > > Then the second option may play only. > > > >> I am not a Kerberos expert but is it really so that every application > that > > wants to use Kerberos needs to implement the token propagation itself? > This > > somehow feels as if there is something missing. > > > > OK, so first some kerberos + token intro. > > > > Some basics: > > * TGT can be created from keytab > > * TGT is needed to obtain TGS (called token) > > * Authentication only works with TGS -> all places where external system > is > > needed either a TGT or TGS needed > > > > There are basically 2 ways to authenticate to a kerberos secured external > > system: > > 1. One needs a kerberos TGT which MUST be propagated to all JVMs. Here > each > > and every JVM obtains a TGS by itself which bombs the KDC that may > collapse. > > 2. One needs a kerberos TGT which exists only on a single place (in this > > case JM). JM gets a TGS which MUST be propagated to all TMs because > > otherwise authentication fails. > > > > Now the whole system works in a way that keytab file (we can imagine that > > as plaintext password) is reachable on all nodes. > > This is a relatively huge attack surface. Now the main intention is: > > * Instead of propagating keytab file to all nodes propagate a TGS which > has > > limited lifetime (more secure) > > * Do the TGS generation in a single place so KDC may not collapse + > having > > keytab only on a single node can be better protected > > > > As a final conclusion if there is a place which expects to do kerberos > > authentication then it's a MUST to have either TGT or TGS. > > Now it's done in a pretty unsecure way. The questions are the following: > > * Do we want to leave this unsecure keytab propagation like this and bomb > > KDC? > > * If no then how do we propagate the more secure token to TMs. > > > > If the answer to the first question is no then the FLIP can be abandoned > > and doesn't worth the further effort. > > If the answer is yes then we can talk about the how part. > > > > G > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 3:42 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> I would prefer not choosing the first option > >> > >>> Make the TM accept tasks only after registration(not sure if it's > >> possible or makes sense at all) > >> > >> because it effectively means that we change how Flink's component > lifecycle > >> works for distributing Kerberos tokens. It also effectively means that > a TM > >> cannot make progress until connected to a RM. > >> > >> I am not a Kerberos expert but is it really so that every application > that > >> wants to use Kerberos needs to implement the token propagation itself? > This > >> somehow feels as if there is something missing. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Till > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 3:29 PM Gabor Somogyi <gabor.g.somo...@gmail.com > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>>> Isn't this something the underlying resource management system could > >> do > >>> or which every process could do on its own? > >>> > >>> I was looking for such feature but not found. > >>> Maybe we can solve the propagation easier but then I'm waiting on > better > >>> suggestion. > >>> If anybody has better/more simple idea then please point to a specific > >>> feature which works on all resource management systems. > >>> > >>>> Here's an example for the TM to run workloads without being connected > >>> to the RM, without ever having a valid token > >>> > >>> All in all I see the main problem. Not sure what is the reason behind > >> that > >>> a TM accepts tasks w/o registration but clearly not helping here. > >>> I basically see 2 possible solutions: > >>> * Make the TM accept tasks only after registration(not sure if it's > >>> possible or makes sense at all) > >>> * We send tokens right after container creation with > >>> "updateDelegationTokens" > >>> Not sure which one is more realistic to do since I'm not involved the > new > >>> feature. > >>> WDYT? > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 3:09 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>>> Hi everyone, > >>>> > >>>> Sorry for joining this discussion late. I also did not read all > >> responses > >>>> in this thread so my question might already be answered: Why does > Flink > >>>> need to be involved in the propagation of the tokens? Why do we need > >>>> explicit RPC calls in the Flink domain? Isn't this something the > >> underlying > >>>> resource management system could do or which every process could do on > >> its > >>>> own? I am a bit worried that we are making Flink responsible for > >> something > >>>> that it is not really designed to do so. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Till > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 2:54 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Here's an example for the TM to run workloads without being connected > >> to > >>>>> the RM, while potentially having a valid token: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. TM registers at RM > >>>>> 2. JobMaster requests slot from RM -> TM gets notified > >>>>> 3. JM fails over > >>>>> 4. TM re-offers the slot to the failed over JobMaster > >>>>> 5. TM reconnects to RM at some point > >>>>> > >>>>> Here's an example for the TM to run workloads without being connected > >> to > >>>>> the RM, without ever having a valid token: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. TM1 has a valid token and is running some tasks. > >>>>> 2. TM1 crashes > >>>>> 3. TM2 is started to take over, and re-uses the working directory > of > >>>>> TM1 (new feature in 1.15!) > >>>>> 4. TM2 recovers the previous slot allocations > >>>>> 5. TM2 is informed about leading JM > >>>>> 6. TM2 starts registration with RM > >>>>> 7. TM2 offers slots to JobMaster > >>>>> 8. TM2 accepts task submission from JobMaster > >>>>> 9. ...some time later the registration completes... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 03/02/2022 14:24, Gabor Somogyi wrote: > >>>>>>> but it can happen that the JobMaster+TM collaborate to run stuff > >>>>>> without the TM being registered at the RM > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Honestly I'm not educated enough within Flink to give an example to > >>>>>> such scenario. > >>>>>> Until now I thought JM defines tasks to be done and TM just blindly > >>>>>> connects to external systems and does the processing. > >>>>>> All in all if external systems can be touched when JM + TM > >>>>>> collaboration happens then we need to consider that in the design. > >>>>>> Since I don't have an example scenario I don't know what exactly > >> needs > >>>>>> to be solved. > >>>>>> I think we need an example case to decide whether we face a real > >> issue > >>>>>> or the design is not leaking. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 2:12 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org > > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Just to learn something new. I think local recovery is clear > to > >>>>>> me which is not touching external systems like Kafka or so > >>>>>> (correct me if I'm wrong). Is it possible that such case the > user > >>>>>> code just starts to run blindly w/o JM coordination and > connects > >>>>>> to external systems to do data processing? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Local recovery itself shouldn't touch external systems; the TM > >>>>>> cannot just run user-code without the JobMaster being involved, > >>>>>> but it can happen that the JobMaster+TM collaborate to run > stuff > >>>>>> without the TM being registered at the RM. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 03/02/2022 13:48, Gabor Somogyi wrote: > >>>>>>> > Any error in loading the provider (be it by accident or > >>>>>>> explicit checks) then is a setup error and we can fail the > >>>>> cluster. > >>>>>>> Fail fast is a good direction in my view. In Spark I wanted to > >> go > >>>>>>> to this direction but there were other opinions so there if a > >>>>>>> provider is not loaded then the workload goes further. > >>>>>>> Of course the processing will fail if the token is missing... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Requiring HBase (and Hadoop for that matter) to be on the JM > >>>>>>> system classpath would be a bit unfortunate. Have you > considered > >>>>>>> loading the providers as plugins? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Even if it's unfortunate the actual implementation is > depending > >>>>>>> on that already. Moving HBase and/or all token providers into > >>>>>>> plugins is a possibility. > >>>>>>> That way if one wants to use a specific provider then a plugin > >>>>>>> need to be added. If we would like to go to this direction I > >>>>>>> would do that in a separate > >>>>>>> FLIP not to have feature creep here. The actual FLIP already > >>>>>>> covers several thousand lines of code changes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > This is missing from the FLIP. From my experience with the > >>>>>>> metric reporters, having the implementation rely on the > >>>>>>> configuration is really annoying for testing purposes. That's > >> why > >>>>>>> I suggested factories; they can take care of extracting all > >>>>>>> parameters that the implementation needs, and then pass them > >>>>>>> nicely via the constructor. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ServiceLoader provided services must have a norarg constructor > >>>>>>> where no parameters can be passed. > >>>>>>> As a side note testing delegation token providers is pain in > the > >>>>>>> ass and not possible with automated tests without creating a > >>>>>>> fully featured kerberos cluster with KDC, HDFS, HBase, Kafka, > >>>>> etc.. > >>>>>>> We've had several tries in Spark but then gave it up because > of > >>>>>>> the complexity and the flakyness of it so I wouldn't care much > >>>>>>> about unit testing. > >>>>>>> The sad truth is that most of the token providers can be > tested > >>>>>>> manually on cluster. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Of course this doesn't mean that the whole code is not > intended > >>>>>>> to be covered with tests. I mean couple of parts can be > >>>>>>> automatically tested but providers are not such. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > This also implies that any fields of the provider wouldn't > >>>>>>> inherently have to be mutable. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think this is not an issue. A provider connects to a > service, > >>>>>>> obtains token(s) and then close the connection and never seen > >> the > >>>>>>> need of an intermediate state. > >>>>>>> I've just mentioned the singleton behavior to be clear. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > One examples is a TM restart + local recovery, where the TM > >>>>>>> eagerly offers the previous set of slots to the leading JM. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Just to learn something new. I think local recovery is clear > to > >>>>>>> me which is not touching external systems like Kafka or so > >>>>>>> (correct me if I'm wrong). > >>>>>>> Is it possible that such case the user code just starts to run > >>>>>>> blindly w/o JM coordination and connects to external systems > to > >>>>>>> do data processing? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 1:09 PM Chesnay Schepler > >>>>>>> <ches...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) > >>>>>>> The manager certainly shouldn't check for specific > >>>>>>> implementations. > >>>>>>> The problem with classpath-based checks is it can easily > >>>>>>> happen that the provider can't be loaded in the first > place > >>>>>>> (e.g., if you don't use reflection, which you currently > >> kinda > >>>>>>> force), and in that case Flink can't tell whether the > token > >>>>>>> is not required or the cluster isn't set up correctly. > >>>>>>> As I see it we shouldn't try to be clever; if the users > >> wants > >>>>>>> kerberos, then have him enable the providers. Any error in > >>>>>>> loading the provider (be it by accident or explicit > checks) > >>>>>>> then is a setup error and we can fail the cluster. > >>>>>>> If we still want to auto-detect whether the provider > should > >>>>>>> be used, note that using factories would make this easier; > >>>>>>> the factory can check the classpath (not having any direct > >>>>>>> dependencies on HBase avoids the case above), and the > >>>>>>> provider no longer needs reflection because it will only > be > >>>>>>> used iff HBase is on the CP. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Requiring HBase (and Hadoop for that matter) to be on the > JM > >>>>>>> system classpath would be a bit unfortunate. Have you > >>>>>>> considered loading the providers as plugins? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) > DelegationTokenProvider#init method > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is missing from the FLIP. From my experience with the > >>>>>>> metric reporters, having the implementation rely on the > >>>>>>> configuration is really annoying for testing purposes. > >> That's > >>>>>>> why I suggested factories; they can take care of > extracting > >>>>>>> all parameters that the implementation needs, and then > pass > >>>>>>> them nicely via the constructor. This also implies that > any > >>>>>>> fields of the provider wouldn't inherently have to be > >> mutable. > >>>>>>> > workloads are not yet running until the initial token > set > >>>>>>> is not propagated. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This isn't necessarily true. It can happen that tasks are > >>>>>>> being deployed to the TM without it having registered with > >>>>>>> the RM; there is currently no requirement that a TM must > be > >>>>>>> registered before it may offer slots / accept task > >>>>> submissions. > >>>>>>> One examples is a TM restart + local recovery, where the > TM > >>>>>>> eagerly offers the previous set of slots to the leading > JM. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 03/02/2022 12:39, Gabor Somogyi wrote: > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the quick response! > >>>>>>>> Appreciate your invested time... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> G > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 11:12 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>>>>>> <ches...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for answering the questions! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1) Does the HBase provider require HBase to be on the > >>>>>>>> classpath? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> To be instantiated no, to obtain a token yes. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If so, then could it even be loaded if Hbase is > on > >>>>>>>> the classpath? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The provider can be loaded but inside the provider it > would > >>>>>>>> detect whether HBase is on classpath. > >>>>>>>> Just to be crystal clear here this is the actual > >>>>>>>> implementation what I would like to take over into the > >>>>> Provider. > >>>>>>>> Please see: > >>>>>>>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/e6210d40491ff28c779b8604e425f01983f8a3d7/flink-yarn/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/yarn/Utils.java#L243-L254 > >>>>>>>> I've considered to load only the necessary Providers but > >>>>>>>> that would mean a generic Manager need to know that if > the > >>>>>>>> newly loaded Provider is > >>>>>>>> instanceof HBaseDelegationTokenProvider, then it need to > be > >>>>>>>> skipped. > >>>>>>>> I think it would add unnecessary complexity to the > Manager > >>>>>>>> and it would contain ugly code parts(at least in my view > >>>>>>>> ugly), like this > >>>>>>>> if (provider instanceof HBaseDelegationTokenProvider && > >>>>>>>> hbaseIsNotOnClasspath()) { > >>>>>>>> // Skip intentionally > >>>>>>>> } else if (provider instanceof > >>>>>>>> SomethingElseDelegationTokenProvider && > >>>>>>>> somethingElseIsNotOnClasspath()) { > >>>>>>>> // Skip intentionally > >>>>>>>> } else { > >>>>>>>> providers.put(provider.serviceName(), provider); > >>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>> I think the least code and most clear approach is to load > >>>>>>>> the providers and decide inside whether everything is > given > >>>>>>>> to obtain a token. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If not, then you're assuming the classpath of the > >>>>>>>> JM/TM to be the same, which isn't necessarily true > (in > >>>>>>>> general; and also if Hbase is loaded from the > >> user-jar). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'm not assuming that the classpath of JM/TM must be the > >>>>>>>> same. If the HBase jar is coming from the user-jar then > the > >>>>>>>> HBase code is going to use UGI within the JVM when > >>>>>>>> authentication required. > >>>>>>>> Of course I've not yet tested within Flink but in Spark > it > >>>>>>>> is working fine. > >>>>>>>> All in all JM/TM classpath may be different but on both > >> side > >>>>>>>> HBase jar must exists somehow. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2) None of the /Providers/ in your PoC get access to > >> the > >>>>>>>> configuration. Only the /Manager/ is. Note that I do > >> not > >>>>>>>> know whether there is a need for the providers to > have > >>>>>>>> access to the config, as that's very implementation > >>>>>>>> specific I suppose. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You're right. Since this is just a POC and I don't have > >>>>>>>> green light I've not put too many effort for a proper > >>>>>>>> self-review. DelegationTokenProvider#init method must get > >>>>>>>> Flink configuration. > >>>>>>>> The reason behind is that several further configuration > can > >>>>>>>> be find out using that. A good example is to get Hadoop > >> conf. > >>>>>>>> The rationale behind is the same just like before, it > would > >>>>>>>> be good to create a generic Manager as possible. > >>>>>>>> To be more specific some code must load Hadoop conf which > >>>>>>>> could be the Manager or the Provider. > >>>>>>>> If the manager does that then the generic Manager must be > >>>>>>>> modified all the time when something special thing is > >> needed > >>>>>>>> for a new provider. > >>>>>>>> This could be super problematic when a custom provider is > >>>>>>>> written. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 10) I'm not sure myself. It could be something as > >>>>>>>> trivial as creating some temporary directory in HDFS > I > >>>>>>>> suppose. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I've not found of such task.YARN and K8S are not > expecting > >>>>>>>> such things from executors and workloads are not yet > >> running > >>>>>>>> until the initial token set is not propagated. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 03/02/2022 10:23, Gabor Somogyi wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Please see my answers inline. Hope provided > satisfying > >>>>> answers to all > >>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> G > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:17 AM Chesnay Schepler< > >>>>> ches...@apache.org> <mailto:ches...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I have a few question that I'd appreciate if you > >> could > >>>>> answer them. > >>>>>>>>>> 1. How does the Provider know whether it is > >>>>> required or not? > >>>>>>>>>> All registered providers which are registered > >> properly > >>>>> are going to be > >>>>>>>>> loaded and asked to obtain tokens. Worth to mention > >>>>> every provider > >>>>>>>>> has the right to decide whether it wants to obtain > >>>>> tokens or not (bool > >>>>>>>>> delegationTokensRequired()). For instance if > provider > >>>>> detects that > >>>>>>>>> HBase is not on classpath or not configured properly > >>>>> then no tokens are > >>>>>>>>> obtained from that specific provider. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You may ask how a provider is registered. Here it > is: > >>>>>>>>> The provider is on classpath + there is a META-INF > >> file > >>>>> which contains the > >>>>>>>>> name of the provider, for example: > >>>>>>>>> > >> > META-INF/services/org.apache.flink.runtime.security.token.DelegationTokenProvider > >>>>>>>>> < > >> > https://github.com/apache/flink/compare/master...gaborgsomogyi:dt?expand=1#diff-b65ee7e64c5d2dfbb683d3569fc3e42f4b5a8052ab83d7ac21de5ab72f428e0b > >>>>> < > >>>>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/flink/compare/master...gaborgsomogyi:dt?expand=1#diff-b65ee7e64c5d2dfbb683d3569fc3e42f4b5a8052ab83d7ac21de5ab72f428e0b > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. How does the configuration of Providers work > >>>>> (how do they get > >>>>>>>>>> access to a configuration)? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Flink configuration is going to be passed to all > >>>>> providers. Please see the > >>>>>>>>> POC here: > >>>>>>>>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/flink/compare/master...gaborgsomogyi:dt?expand=1 > >>>>>>>>> Service specific configurations are loaded > on-the-fly. > >>>>> For example in HBase > >>>>>>>>> case it looks for HBase configuration class which > will > >>>>> be instantiated > >>>>>>>>> within the provider. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. How does a user select providers? (Is it > >> purely > >>>>> based on the > >>>>>>>>>> provider being on the classpath?) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Providers can be explicitly turned off with the > >>>>> following config: > >>>>>>>>> "security.kerberos.tokens.${name}.enabled". I've > never > >>>>> seen that 2 > >>>>>>>>> different implementation would exist for a specific > >>>>>>>>> external service, but if this edge case would exist > >>>>> then the mentioned > >>>>>>>>> config need to be added, a new provider with a > >>>>> different name need to be > >>>>>>>>> implemented and registered. > >>>>>>>>> All in all we've seen that provider handling is not > >>>>> user specific task but > >>>>>>>>> a cluster admin one. If a specific provider is > needed > >>>>> then it's implemented > >>>>>>>>> once per company, registered once > >>>>>>>>> to the clusters and then all users may or may not > use > >>>>> the obtained tokens. > >>>>>>>>> Worth to mention the system will know which token > need > >>>>> to be used when HDFS > >>>>>>>>> is accessed, this part is automatic. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. How can a user override an existing > provider? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Pease see the previous bulletpoint. > >>>>>>>>>> 1. What is DelegationTokenProvider#name() used > >> for? > >>>>>>>>>> By default all providers which are registered > >> properly > >>>>> (on classpath + > >>>>>>>>> META-INF entry) are on by default. With > >>>>>>>>> "security.kerberos.tokens.${name}.enabled" a > specific > >>>>> provider can be > >>>>>>>>> turned off. > >>>>>>>>> Additionally I'm intended to use this in log entries > >>>>> later on for debugging > >>>>>>>>> purposes. For example "hadoopfs provider obtained 2 > >>>>> tokens with ID...". > >>>>>>>>> This would help what and when is happening > >>>>>>>>> with tokens. The same applies to TaskManager side: > "2 > >>>>> hadoopfs provider > >>>>>>>>> tokens arrived with ID...". Important to note that > the > >>>>> secret part will be > >>>>>>>>> hidden in the mentioned log entries to keep the > >>>>>>>>> attach surface low. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. What happens if the names of 2 providers are > >>>>> identical? > >>>>>>>>>> Presume you mean 2 different classes which both > >>>>> registered and having the > >>>>>>>>> same logic inside. This case both will be loaded and > >>>>> both is going to > >>>>>>>>> obtain token(s) for the same service. > >>>>>>>>> Both obtained token(s) are going to be added to the > >>>>> UGI. As a result the > >>>>>>>>> second will overwrite the first but the order is not > >>>>> defined. Since both > >>>>>>>>> token(s) are valid no matter which one is > >>>>>>>>> used then access to the external system will work. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> When the class names are same then service loader > only > >>>>> loads a single entry > >>>>>>>>> because services are singletons. That's the reason > why > >>>>> state inside > >>>>>>>>> providers are not advised. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. Will we directly load the provider, or first > >>>>> load a factory > >>>>>>>>>> (usually preferable)? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Intended to load a provider directly by DTM. We can > >>>>> add an extra layer to > >>>>>>>>> have factory but after consideration I came to a > >>>>> conclusion that it would > >>>>>>>>> be and overkill this case. > >>>>>>>>> Please have a look how it's planned to load > providers > >>>>> now: > >> > https://github.com/apache/flink/compare/master...gaborgsomogyi:dt?expand=1#diff-d56a0bc77335ff23c0318f6dec1872e7b19b1a9ef6d10fff8fbaab9aecac94faR54-R81 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. What is the Credentials class (it would > >>>>> necessarily have to be a > >>>>>>>>>> public api as well)? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Credentials class is coming from Hadoop. My main > >>>>> intention was not to bind > >>>>>>>>> the implementation to Hadoop completely. It is not > >>>>> possible because of the > >>>>>>>>> following reasons: > >>>>>>>>> * Several functionalities are must because there are > >> no > >>>>> alternatives, > >>>>>>>>> including but not limited to login from keytab, > proper > >>>>> TGT cache handling, > >>>>>>>>> passing tokens to Hadoop services like HDFS, HBase, > >>>>> Hive, etc. > >>>>>>>>> * The partial win is that the whole delegation token > >>>>> framework is going to > >>>>>>>>> be initiated if hadoop-common is on classpath > (Hadoop > >>>>> is optional in core > >>>>>>>>> libraries) > >>>>>>>>> The possibility to eliminate Credentials from API > >> could > >>>>> be: > >>>>>>>>> * to convert Credentials to byte array forth and > back > >>>>> while a provider > >>>>>>>>> gives back token(s): I think this would be an > overkill > >>>>> and would make the > >>>>>>>>> API less clear what to give back what Manager > >>>>> understands > >>>>>>>>> * to re-implement Credentials internal structure in > a > >>>>> POJO, here the same > >>>>>>>>> convert forth and back would happen between provider > >>>>> and manager. I think > >>>>>>>>> this case would be the re-invent the wheel scenario > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. What does the TaskManager do with the > received > >>>>> token? > >>>>>>>>>> Puts the tokens into the UserGroupInformation > >> instance > >>>>> for the current > >>>>>>>>> user. Such way Hadoop compatible services can pick > up > >>>>> the tokens from there > >>>>>>>>> properly. > >>>>>>>>> This is an existing pattern inside Spark. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. Is there any functionality in the > TaskManager > >>>>> that could require a > >>>>>>>>>> token on startup (i.e., before registering with > >>>>> the RM)? > >>>>>>>>>> Never seen such functionality in Spark and after > >>>>> analysis not seen in > >>>>>>>>> Flink too. If you have something in mind which I've > >>>>> missed plz help me out. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 11/01/2022 14:58, Gabor Somogyi wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi All, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hope all of you have enjoyed the holiday season. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I would like to start the discussion on FLIP-211< > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-211%3A+Kerberos+delegation+token+framework > >>>>> < > >>>>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-211%3A+Kerberos+delegation+token+framework > >>>>> < > >>>>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-211%3A+Kerberos+delegation+token+framework > >>>>> < > >>>>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-211%3A+Kerberos+delegation+token+framework > >>>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>>> aims to provide a > >>>>>>>>>> Kerberos delegation token framework that > >>>>> /obtains/renews/distributes tokens > >>>>>>>>>> out-of-the-box. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Please be aware that the FLIP wiki area is not > fully > >>>>> done since the > >>>>>>>>>> discussion may > >>>>>>>>>> change the feature in major ways. The proposal can > be > >>>>> found in a google doc > >>>>>>>>>> here< > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JzMbQ1pCJsLVz8yHrCxroYMRP2GwGwvacLrGyaIx5Yc/edit?fbclid=IwAR0vfeJvAbEUSzHQAAJfnWTaX46L6o7LyXhMfBUCcPrNi-uXNgoOaI8PMDQ > >>>>> < > >>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JzMbQ1pCJsLVz8yHrCxroYMRP2GwGwvacLrGyaIx5Yc/edit?fbclid=IwAR0vfeJvAbEUSzHQAAJfnWTaX46L6o7LyXhMfBUCcPrNi-uXNgoOaI8PMDQ > >>>>> < > >>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JzMbQ1pCJsLVz8yHrCxroYMRP2GwGwvacLrGyaIx5Yc/edit?fbclid=IwAR0vfeJvAbEUSzHQAAJfnWTaX46L6o7LyXhMfBUCcPrNi-uXNgoOaI8PMDQ > >>>>> < > >>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JzMbQ1pCJsLVz8yHrCxroYMRP2GwGwvacLrGyaIx5Yc/edit?fbclid=IwAR0vfeJvAbEUSzHQAAJfnWTaX46L6o7LyXhMfBUCcPrNi-uXNgoOaI8PMDQ > >>>>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>>> As the community agrees on the approach the content > >>>>> will be moved to the > >>>>>>>>>> wiki page. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Feel free to add your thoughts to make this feature > >>>>> better! > >>>>>>>>>> BR, > >>>>>>>>>> G > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >
