Ivan,
Am I right, that current approach to solving this problem looks good for
you?
Regards,
Mikhail.
On 03.12.2019 15:12, Ivan Pavlukhin wrote:
Mikhail,
Yep, I see IgniteNodeValidationResult in new event in PR [1].
Discovery events such as (join/left/failed) are connected with a
topology version change. In my case that not happens and may be
misleading. That's why the new event type was chosen.
I did not mean that one of those events should be used. I meant that
it sounds natural to me to have an additional "unsuccessful node join"
event (like is done in PR[1]).
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7057/files
вт, 3 дек. 2019 г. в 14:32, Mikhail Petrov <pmgheap....@gmail.com>:
Nikolay, Ivan,
I understood the possible problem. It seems that it can be solved using
EventStorageSpi which starts before DiscoveryManager.
As for me, ClusterNode is enough. It contains all info about joining
node including its attributes.
Discovery events such as (join/left/failed) are connected with a
topology version change. In my case that not happens and may be
misleading. That's why the new event type was chosen.
The cause of the failure is also presented in the event.
Regards,
Mikhail.
On 03.12.2019 13:19, Николай Ижиков wrote:
Exception(s) from component(s) that don’t want node joined.
3 дек. 2019 г., в 12:39, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> написал(а):
How that reason will look like? Actually, I mostly thinking about
general API here. What I would like to avoid is exposing something not
general but needed only for a particular extension (plugin).
вт, 3 дек. 2019 г. в 12:31, Николай Ижиков <nizhi...@apache.org>:
I think we also should provide the reason why join failed.
3 дек. 2019 г., в 12:22, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> написал(а):
Mikhail,
So, I suppose there should be ordering guarantees that listener is
registered before first validation failure can occur. Hope
GridComponent#onKernalStart is the right place. Is it enough to pass
only problematic node id (or ClusterNode) with an event? Actually such
event seems to fit naturally node join/left/failed events.
вт, 3 дек. 2019 г. в 10:38, Mikhail Petrov <pmgheap....@gmail.com>:
Hi Ivan.
No other lifecycle events are needed in my case.
We can register a listener in the security component's
GridComponent#onKernalStart method and listen locally to every failed
joining attempt. Am I missing something?
Regards,
Mikhail.
On 03.12.2019 8:48, Ivan Pavlukhin wrote:
Mikhail,
Do you need some ordering guarantees among node lifecycle events and
listener notifications. For example, I can imagine that it is good to
notify security component about every node failed validation. How can
we achieve it with events (I assume dynamic listener registration)?
пн, 2 дек. 2019 г. в 18:09, Mikhail Petrov <pmgheap....@gmail.com>:
Hi, Andrey.
It doesn't influence on authentication or authorization process. There
is a security requirement that demands to notify some outer security
subsystems in a specific way when joining node validation failed in any
Ignite component (e.g. GridCacheProcessor) not only in
IgniteSecurityProcessor. So PluginProvider#validateNewNode is not
acceptable for me.
Regards,
Mikhail.
On 02.12.2019 16:35, Andrey Gura wrote:
Mikhail,
I don't understand how node validation on join affects security. But
it seems that you can use
PluginProvider#validateNewNode(org.apache.ignite.cluster.ClusterNode,
java.io.Serializable) method. Does it fit for your needs?
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 12:54 PM Mikhail Petrov <pmgheap....@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Ivan.
Unfortunately, we came to no decision yet. As I mentioned above this
event is disabled by default and no node will receive this event without
an explicit subscription. In my case, that event is assumed to be used
on node locally to share joining node info between security and
discovery components. I have no idea how to solve this problem without
publishing a new event too. But I'm concerned about the acceptance of
that solution. Maybe it can be solved some other way? I will appreciate
any suggestion or review PR [1] with event implementation.
[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7057
Regards,
Mikhail.
On 02.12.2019 10:38, Ivan Pavlukhin wrote:
Mikhail, Andrey,
Have you come to a common decision here? As for me, it sounds useful
to expose node join failure details somehow. The thing to decide on is
a mechanism to expose it. Unfortunately, immediately have no idea
better than using events.
What is purpose of the special cluster wide event? Node is not joined
to the topology. Why topology nodes should know something about this
node?
Was this question answered? I suppose that at least coordinator will
receive the event, will not it?
чт, 28 нояб. 2019 г. в 10:10, Mikhail Petrov <pmgheap....@gmail.com>:
Hi, Ivan.
I'm sorry that the discussion was moved in private channel. The problem
I'm trying to solve is described below in the thread. The security
plugin in my case stores and analyzesinfo about a node that failed to join.
Regards,
Mikhail.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Joining node validation failure event.
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 21:43:33 +0300
From: Mikhail Petrov <pmgheap....@gmail.com>
To: Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org>
Hi, Andrey.
In my task security plugin running on the coordinator must locally
handle the situation when some node is trying to join the topology with
the invalid configuration. I can't handle the response on a node that
failed to connect because it's untrusted.
Actually I'm only concerned about one validation -- when all Ignite
components validate new node.
In my case plugin must be able to obtain general and security subject
information from joining TcpDiscoveryNode attributes. But I have no idea
how to share information between the security and discovery components
without recording event and listening it locally.
This event is assumed to be disable by default and in my case used only
on local node so it's not look like "cluster wide event".
Also I propose to record this event in dedicated utilityPool so it can't
stuck discovery thread.
I will appreciate any thoughts on this problem.
Regards,
Mikhail.
On 21.11.2019 19:40, Andrey Gura wrote:
Mikhail,
It is still not enough details to me. What is expected behavior if the
plugin?
There are a different validations during node join. Many of them
placed in RingMessageWorker#processJoinRequestMessage method. If
validation will fail then corresponding message will be sent to the
joining node (including TcpDiscoveryAuthFailedMessage) and node will
not joined to topology.
What is purpose of the special cluster wide event? Node is not joined
to the topology. Why topology nodes should know something about this
node?
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:54 AM Mikhail Petrov <pmgheap....@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi, Andrey.
I take part in the development of a custom security plugin for Apache
Ignite. There is an information security requirement for which node
joining failures due to invalid configuration must be handled by the
plugin.
This is where my case comes from. Are there any objections to the
proposed approach?
Regards,
Mikhail.
On 20.11.2019 19:38, Andrey Gura wrote:
Hi, Mikhail!
Could you please describe the case for this new event?
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:45 PM Mikhail Petrov
<pmgheap....@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, Igniters.
There is a case which requires to handle joining node validation
failure
in Ignite components and obtain information of the node that tried to
join and the reason for the failure. Now, as I see, there is no way to
do it. I propose to implement a new event -- NodeValidationFailedEvent
-- and record it in case the validation fails. I have created Tiket [1]
and PR [2], which shows an example of implementation. Could anyone take
a look at it, please?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12380
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7057
--
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
--
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
