Hi David, Thanks for reviewing the KIP! Since questions about `authorization mode` and `count` have come up multiple times, I have renamed both.
1) Renamed `count` to `resourceReferenceCount`. It is the number of times the resource being authorized is referenced within the request. 2) Renamed `AuthorizationMode` to `AuditFlag`. It is provided to improve audit logging in the authorizer. The enum values have javadoc which indicate how the authorization result is used in each of the modes to enable authorizers to log audit messages at the right severity level. Regards, Rajini On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:54 PM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi Rajini, > > Thank you for the KIP. Overall, it looks good to me. I have few > questions/suggestions: > > 1. It is hard to grasp what `Action#count` is for. I guess I understand > where you want to go with it but it took me a while to figure it out. > Perhaps, we could come up with a better name than `count`? > > 2. I had a hard time trying to understand the `AuthorizationMode` concept, > especially wrt. the OPTIONAL one. My understanding is that an ACL is either > defined or not. Could you elaborate a bit more on that? > > Thanks, > David > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:26 PM Don Bosco Durai <bo...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Rajini > > > > 3.2 - This makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. > > > > Rest looks fine. Once the implementations are done, it will be more clear > > on the different values RequestType and Mode. > > > > Thanks > > > > Bosco > > > > > > On 8/9/19, 5:08 AM, "Rajini Sivaram" <rajinisiva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Don, > > > > Thanks for the suggestions. A few responses below: > > > > 3.1 Can rename and improve docs if we keep this. Let's finish the > > discussion on Colin's suggestions regarding this first. > > 3.2 No, I was thinking of some requests that have an old way of > > authorizing > > and a new way where we have retained the old way for backward > > compatibility. One example is Cluster:Create permission to create > > topics. > > We have replaced this with fine-grained topic create access using > > Topic:Create > > for topic patterns. But we still check if user has Cluster:Create > > first. If > > Denied, the deny is ignored and we check Topic:Create. We dont want > to > > log > > DENY for Cluster:Create at INFO level for this, since this is not a > > mandatory ACL for creating topics. We will get appropriate logs from > > the > > subsequent Topic:Create in this case. > > 3.3 They are not quite the same. FILTER implies that user actually > > requested access to and performed some operation on the filtered > > resources. > > LIST_AUTHORZED did not result in any actual access. User simply > wanted > > to > > know what they are allowed to access. > > 3.4 Request types are Produce, JoinGroup, OffsetCommit etc. So that > is > > different from authorization mode, operation etc. > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:36 PM Don Bosco Durai <bo...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Rajini > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying. This is very helpful... > > > > > > #1 - On the Ranger side, we should be able to handle multiple > > requests at > > > the same time. I was just not sure how much processing overhead > will > > be > > > there on the Broker side to split and then consolidate the results. > > If it > > > is negligible, then this is the better way. It will make it future > > proof. > > > #2 - I agree, having a single "start" call makes it cleaner. The > > > Authorization implementation will only have to do the > initialization > > only > > > once. > > > #3.1 - Thanks for the clarification. I think it makes sense to have > > this. > > > The term "Mode" might not be explicit enough. Essentially it seems > > you want > > > the Authorizer to know the Intent/Purpose of the authorize call and > > let the > > > Authorizer decide what to log as Audit event. Changing the > > class/field name > > > or giving more documentation will do. > > > #3.2 - Regarding the option "OPTIONAL". Are you thinking from > > chaining > > > multiple Authorizer? If so, I am not sure whether the Broker would > > have > > > enough information to make that decision. I feel the Authorizer > will > > be the > > > one who would have that knowledge. E.g. in Ranger we have explicit > > deny, > > > which means no matter what, the request should be denied for the > > user/group > > > or condition. So if you are thinking of chaining Authorizers, then > > > responses should have the third state, e.g. "DENIED_FINAL", in > which > > case > > > if there is an Authorization chain, it will be stop and the request > > will be > > > denied and if it is just denied, then you might fall back to next > > > authorizer. If we don't have chaining of Authorizing in mind, then > we > > > should reconsider OPTIONAL for now. Or clarify under which scenario > > > OPTIONAL will be called. > > > #3.3 Regarding, FILTER v/s LIST_AUTHORIZED, isn't LIST_AUTHORIZED a > > > special case for "FILTER"? > > > #3.4 KafkaRequestContext. requestType() v/s Action. > > authorizationMode. I > > > am not sure about the overlap or ambiguity. > > > #4 - Cool. This is good, it will be less stress on the Authorizer. > > Ranger > > > already supports the "count" concept and also has batching > > capability to > > > aggregate similar requests to reduce the number of audit logs to > > write. We > > > should be able to pass this through. > > > #5 - Assuming if the object instance is going out of scope, we > > should be > > > fine. Not a super important ask. Ranger is already catching KILL > > signal for > > > clean up. > > > > > > Thanks again. These are good enhancements. Appreciate your efforts > > here. > > > > > > Bosco > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/8/19, 2:03 AM, "Rajini Sivaram" <rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Don, > > > > > > Thanks for reviewing the KIP. > > > > > > 1. I had this originally as a single Action, but thought it may > > be > > > useful > > > to support batched authorize calls as well and keep it > > consistent with > > > other methods. Single requests can contain multiple topics. For > > > example a > > > produce request can contain records for several partitions of > > different > > > topics. Broker could potentially authorize these together. For > > > SimpleAclAuthorizer, batched authorize methods don't provide > any > > > optimisation since lookup is based on resources followed by the > > > matching > > > logic. But some authorizers may manage ACLs by user principal > > rather > > > than > > > resource and may be able to optimize batched requests. I am ok > > with > > > using > > > single Action if this is likely to cause issues. > > > 2. If you have two listeners, one for inter-broker traffic and > > another > > > for > > > external clients, start method is invoked twice, once for each > > > listener. On > > > second thought, that may be confusing and a single start() > > invocation > > > that > > > provides all listener information and returns multiple futures > > would be > > > better. Will update the KIP. > > > 3. A typical example is a consumer subscribing to a regex > > pattern. We > > > request all topic metadata from the broker in order to decide > > whether > > > the > > > pattern matches, expecting to receive a list of authorised > > topics. The > > > user > > > is not asking to subscribe to an unauthorized topic. If there > > are 10000 > > > topics in the cluster and the user has access to 100 of them, > at > > the > > > moment > > > we log 9900 DENIED log entries at INFO level in > > SimpleAclAuthorizer. > > > The > > > proposal is to authorize this request with > > AuthorizationMode.FILTER, so > > > that authorizers can log resources that are filtered out at > > lower level > > > like DEBUG since this is not an attempt to access unauthorized > > > resources. > > > Brokers already handle these differently since no authorization > > error > > > is > > > returned to the client in these cases. Providing authorization > > mode to > > > authorizers enables authorizer implementations to generate > > better audit > > > logs. > > > 4. Each request may contain multiple instances of the same > > authorizable > > > resource. For example a produce request may contain records for > > 10 > > > partitions of the same topic. At the moment, we invoke > authorize > > > method 10 > > > times. The proposal is to invoke it once with count=10. The > > count is > > > provided to authorizer just for audit logging purposes. > > > 5. Authorizer implements Closeable, so you could use close() to > > flush > > > audits? > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:01 AM Don Bosco Durai < > bo...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > Thanks for putting this together. It is looking good. I have > > few > > > > questions... > > > > > > > > 1. List<AuthorizationResult> authorize(..., List<Action> > > actions). > > > Do you > > > > see a scenario where the broker will call authorize for > > multiple > > > topics at > > > > the same time? I can understand that during creating/deleting > > ACLS, > > > > multiple permissions for multiple resources might be done. > For > > > authorize > > > > call, would this be a case? And does the Authorize > > implementation > > > will be > > > > able to do performance optimization because of this? Or > should > > we > > > just keep > > > > it simple? I don't see it as an issue from Apache Ranger > side, > > but > > > just > > > > checking to see whether we need to be aware of something. > > > > 2. Should I assume that the SecurityProtocol passed during > > start and > > > the > > > > one return by KafkaRequestContext.securityProtocol() will be > > the > > > same? > > > > CompletableFuture<Void> start(String listenerName, > > SecurityProtocol > > > > securityProtocol); > > > > KafkaRequestContext.securityProtocol() > > > > 3. What is the purpose of AuthorizationMode? How does the > > broker > > > decide > > > > what mode to use when the authorize() method is called? > > > > 4. Can we clarify "count" in Action a bit more? How is it > used? > > > > 5. Do you feel having "stop" along with "start" be helpful? > > E.g. In > > > Ranger > > > > we try to optimize the Audit writing by caching the logs for > a > > fixed > > > > interval. But when the Broker terminates, we do a forced > flush. > > > Having an > > > > explicit "stop" might give us a formal way to flush our > audits. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Bosco > > > > > > > > On 8/7/19, 3:59 PM, "Rajini Sivaram" < > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Ron/Harsha/Satish, > > > > > > > > Thanks for reviewing the KIP! > > > > > > > > We should perhaps have a wider discussion outside this > KIP > > for > > > > refactoring > > > > clients so that others who are not following this KIP > also > > > notice the > > > > discussion. Satish, would you like to start a discussion > > thread > > > on dev? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:21 PM Satish Duggana < > > > > satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I felt the same need when we want to add a pluggable > API > > for > > > core > > > > > server functionality. This does not need to be part of > > this > > > KIP, it > > > > > can be a separate KIP. I can contribute those > refactoring > > > changes if > > > > > others are OK with that. > > > > > > > > > > It is better to have a structure like below. > > > > > > > > > > kafka-common: > > > > > common classes which can be used in any of the other > > modules > > > in Kafka > > > > > like client, Kafka-server-common and server etc. > > > > > > > > > > kafka-client-common: > > > > > common classes which can be used in the client module. > > This > > > can be > > > > > part of client module itself. > > > > > > > > > > kafka-server-common: > > > > > classes required only for kafka-server. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > Satish. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:28 PM Harsha Chintalapani < > > > ka...@harsha.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP Rajini. > > > > > > Quick thought, it would be good to have a common > module > > > outside of > > > > > clients > > > > > > that only applies to server side interfaces & > changes. > > It > > > looks > > > > like we > > > > > are > > > > > > increasingly in favor of using Java interface for > > pluggable > > > > modules on > > > > > the > > > > > > broker side. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Harsha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 2:31 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have created a KIP to replace the Scala > Authorizer > > API > > > with a > > > > new > > > > > Java > > > > > > > API: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > > > > > > KIP-504+-+Add+new+Java+Authorizer+Interface > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is replacement for KIP-50 which was accepted > > but never > > > > merged. > > > > > Apart > > > > > > > from moving to a Java API consistent with other > > pluggable > > > > interfaces > > > > > in the > > > > > > > broker, KIP-504 also attempts to address known > > limitations > > > in the > > > > > > > authorizer. If you have come across other > > limitations that > > > you > > > > would > > > > > like > > > > > > > to see addressed in the new API, please raise these > > on the > > > > discussion > > > > > > > thread so that we can consider those too. All > > suggestions > > > and > > > > feedback > > > > > are > > > > > > > welcome. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
