Thanks all for the opinions. Chris wrote: I went through the repository, and now understand the reasoning that would locate this code in Apache Commons. This isn't proposing to extract much of the implementation and it takes none of the integration. It's limited to interfaces to crypto libraries and streams/configuration. It might be a reasonable fit for commons-codec, but that's a pretty sparse library and driving the release cadence might be more complicated. It'd be worth discussing on their lists (please also CC common-dev@).
[UMA] Ok. Great. You are right. I have cc¹ed to hadoop common. (You mean to cc Apache commons as well?) Chris wrote: Would it make sense to also package some of the compression libraries, and maybe some of the text processing from MapReduce? Evolving some of this code to a common library with few/no dependencies would be generally useful. As a subproject, it could have a broader scope that could evolve into a viable TLP. If the encryption libraries are the only ones you're interested in pulling out, then Apache Commons does seem like a better target than a separate project. -C [UMA] Right now we plan to have encryption libraries are the only one¹s we planned and as we see lot of interest from other projects like spark to use them. I see some challenges when we bring lot of code(other common codes) into this project is that, they all would have different requirements and may be different expected timelines for release etc. Some projects may just wanted to use encryption interfaces alone but not all. As they are completely independent codes, may be better to scope out clearly. Chris wrote: Bundling the library with the jar is helpful; I've used that before. It should prefer (updated) libraries from the environment, if configured. Otherwise it's a pain (or impossible) for ops to patch security bugs. [UMA] Agreed. Kai wrote: The encryption or security thing is surely a good starting as the current focus. Considering or having other things like compression would help to determine how to vision, position and layout the new project, in Hadoop side, apache common project, or a new TLP, containing the candidate modules. Yes at the beginning, only the encryption thing. [UMA] Yeah right. Considering encryption at this stage is right thing. But when we consider encryption thing alone we have to go to apache commons is what one proposal. Regards, Uma On 2/3/16, 6:46 PM, "Chen, Haifeng" <haifeng.c...@intel.com> wrote: >Thanks Chris. > >>> I went through the repository, and now understand the reasoning that >>>would locate this code in Apache Commons. This isn't proposing to >>>extract much of the implementation and it takes none of the >>>integration. It's limited to interfaces to crypto libraries and >>>streams/configuration. >Exactly. > >>> Chimera would be a boutique TLP, unless we wanted to draw out more of >>>the integration and tooling. Is that a goal you're interested in >>>pursuing? There's a tension between keeping this focused and including >>>enough functionality to make it viable as an independent component. >The Chimera goal was for providing useful, common and optimized >cryptographic functionalities. I would prefer that it is still focused in >this clear scope. Multiple domain requirements will put more challenges >and uncertainties in where and how it should go, thus more risk in >stalling. > >>> If the encryption libraries are the only ones you're interested in >>>pulling out, then Apache Commons does seem like a better target than a >>>separate project. >Yes. Just mentioned above, the library will be positioned in >cryptographic. > > >Thanks, > >-----Original Message----- >From: Chris Douglas [mailto:cdoug...@apache.org] >Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 7:26 AM >To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org >Subject: Re: Hadoop encryption module as Apache Chimera incubator project > >I went through the repository, and now understand the reasoning that >would locate this code in Apache Commons. This isn't proposing to extract >much of the implementation and it takes none of the integration. It's >limited to interfaces to crypto libraries and streams/configuration. It >might be a reasonable fit for commons-codec, but that's a pretty sparse >library and driving the release cadence might be more complicated. It'd >be worth discussing on their lists (please also CC common-dev@). > >Chimera would be a boutique TLP, unless we wanted to draw out more of the >integration and tooling. Is that a goal you're interested in pursuing? >There's a tension between keeping this focused and including enough >functionality to make it viable as an independent component. By way of >example, Hadoop's common project requires too many dependencies and >carries too much historical baggage for other projects to rely on. >I agree with Colin/Steve: we don't want this to grow into another >guava-like dependency that creates more work in conflicts than it saves >in implementation... > >Would it make sense to also package some of the compression libraries, >and maybe some of the text processing from MapReduce? Evolving some of >this code to a common library with few/no dependencies would be generally >useful. As a subproject, it could have a broader scope that could evolve >into a viable TLP. If the encryption libraries are the only ones you're >interested in pulling out, then Apache Commons does seem like a better >target than a separate project. -C > > >On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Gangumalla, Uma >> <uma.ganguma...@intel.com> wrote: >>>>Standing in the point of shared fundamental piece of code like this, >>>>I do think Apache Commons might be the best direction which we can >>>>try as the first effort. In this direction, we still need to work >>>>with Apache Common community for buying in and accepting the proposal. >>> Make sense. >> >> Makes sense how? >> >>> For this we should define the independent release cycles for this >>> project and it would just place under Hadoop tree if we all conclude >>> with this option at the end. >> >> Yes. >> >>> [Chris] >>>>If Chimera is not successful as an independent project or stalls, >>>>Hadoop and/or Spark and/or $project will have to reabsorb it as >>>>maintainers. >>>> >>> I am not so strong on this point. If we assume project would be >>> unsuccessful, it can be unsuccessful(less maintained) even under >>>hadoop. >>> But if other projects depending on this piece then they would get >>> less support. Of course right now we feel this piece of code is very >>> important and we feel(expect) it can be successful as independent >>> project, irrespective of whether it as separate project outside hadoop >>>or inside. >>> So, I feel this point would not really influence to judge the >>>discussion. >> >> Sure; code can idle anywhere, but that wasn't the point I was after. >> You propose to extract code from Hadoop, but if Chimera fails then >> what recourse do we have among the other projects taking a dependency >> on it? Splitting off another project is feasible, but Chimera should >> be sustainable before this PMC can divest itself of responsibility for >> security libraries. That's a pretty low bar. >> >> Bundling the library with the jar is helpful; I've used that before. >> It should prefer (updated) libraries from the environment, if >> configured. Otherwise it's a pain (or impossible) for ops to patch >> security bugs. -C >> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Colin P. McCabe [mailto:cmcc...@apache.org] >>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 4:56 AM >>>>To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org >>>>Subject: Re: Hadoop encryption module as Apache Chimera incubator >>>>project >>>> >>>>It's great to see interest in improving this functionality. I think >>>>Chimera could be successful as an Apache project. I don't have a >>>>strong opinion one way or the other as to whether it belongs as part >>>>of Hadoop or separate. >>>> >>>>I do think there will be some challenges splitting this functionality >>>>out into a separate jar, because of the way our CLASSPATH works right >>>>now. >>>>For example, let's say that Hadoop depends on Chimera 1.2 and Spark >>>>depends on Chimera 1.1. Now Spark jobs have two different versions >>>>fighting it out on the classpath, similar to the situation with Guava >>>>and other libraries. Perhaps if Chimera adopts a policy of strong >>>>backwards compatibility, we can just always use the latest jar, but >>>>it still seems likely that there will be problems. There are various >>>>classpath isolation ideas that could help here, but they are big >>>>projects in their own right and we don't have a clear timeline for >>>>them. If this does end up being a separate jar, we may need to shade >>>>it to avoid all these issues. >>>> >>>>Bundling the JNI glue code in the jar itself is an interesting idea, >>>>which we have talked about before for libhadoop.so. It doesn't >>>>really have anything to do with the question of TLP vs. non-TLP, of >>>>course. >>>>We could do that refactoring in Hadoop itself. The really >>>>complicated part of bundling JNI code in a jar is that you need to >>>>create jars for every cross product of (JVM version, openssl version, >>>>operating system). >>>>For example, you have the RHEL6 build for openJDK7 using openssl >>>>1.0.1e. >>>>If you change any one thing-- say, change openJDK7 to Oracle JDK8, >>>>then you might need to rebuild. And certainly using Ubuntu would be >>>>a rebuild. And so forth. This kind of clashes with Maven's >>>>philosophy of pulling prebuilt jars from the internet. >>>> >>>>Kai Zheng's question about whether we would bundle openSSL's >>>>libraries is a good one. Given the high rate of new vulnerabilities >>>>discovered in that library, it seems like bundling would require >>>>Hadoop users and vendors to update very frequently, much more >>>>frequently than Hadoop is traditionally updated. So probably we would >>>>not choose to bundle openssl. >>>> >>>>best, >>>>Colin >>>> >>>>On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> >>>>wrote: >>>>> As a subproject of Hadoop, Chimera could maintain its own cadence. >>>>> There's also no reason why it should maintain dependencies on other >>>>> parts of Hadoop, if those are separable. How is this solution >>>>> inadequate? >>>>> >>>>> If Chimera is not successful as an independent project or stalls, >>>>> Hadoop and/or Spark and/or $project will have to reabsorb it as >>>>> maintainers. Projects have high mortality in early life, and a >>>>> fight over inheritance/maintenance is something we'd like to avoid. >>>>> If, on the other hand, it develops enough of a community where it >>>>> is obviously viable, then we can (and should) break it out as a TLP >>>>> (as we have before). If other Apache projects take a dependency on >>>>> Chimera, we're open to adding them to security@hadoop. >>>>> >>>>> Unlike Yetus, which was largely rewritten right before it was made >>>>> into a TLP, security in Hadoop has a complicated pedigree. If >>>>> Chimera eventually becomes a TLP, it seems fair to include those >>>>> who work on it while it is a subproject. Declared upfront, that >>>>> criterion is fairer than any post hoc justification, and will lead >>>>> to a more accurate account of its community than a subset of the >>>>> Hadoop PMC/committers that volunteer. -C >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Chen, Haifeng >>>>><haifeng.c...@intel.com> >>>>>wrote: >>>>>> Thanks to all folks providing feedbacks and participating the >>>>>>discussions. >>>>>> >>>>>> @Owen, do you still have any concerns on going forward in the >>>>>>direction of Apache Commons (or other options, TLP)? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Haifeng >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Chen, Haifeng [mailto:haifeng.c...@intel.com] >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 10:52 AM >>>>>> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: RE: Hadoop encryption module as Apache Chimera incubator >>>>>> project >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe encryption is becoming a core part of Hadoop. I think >>>>>>>>that moving core components out of Hadoop is bad from a project >>>>>>>>management perspective. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Although it's certainly true that encryption capabilities (in >>>>>>>HDFS, YARN, etc.) are becoming core to Hadoop, I don't think that >>>>>>>should really influence whether or not the non-Hadoop-specific >>>>>>>encryption routines should be part of the Hadoop code base, or >>>>>>>part of the code base of another project that Hadoop depends on. >>>>>>>If Chimera had existed as a library hosted at ASF when HDFS >>>>>>>encryption was first developed, HDFS probably would have just >>>>>>>added that as a dependency and been done with it. I don't think we >>>>>>>would've copy/pasted the code for Chimera into the Hadoop code base. >>>>>> >>>>>> Agree with ATM. I want to also make an additional clarification. I >>>>>>agree that the encryption capabilities are becoming core to Hadoop. >>>>>>While this effort is to put common and shared encryption routines >>>>>>such as crypto stream implementations into a scope which can be >>>>>>widely shared across the Apache ecosystem. This doesn't move Hadoop >>>>>>encryption out of Hadoop (that is not possible). >>>>>> >>>>>> Agree if we make it a separate and independent releases project in >>>>>>Hadoop takes a step further than the existing approach and solve >>>>>>some issues (such as libhadoop.so problem). Frankly speaking, I >>>>>>think it is not the best option we can try. I also expect that an >>>>>>independent release project within Hadoop core will also complicate >>>>>>the existing release ideology of Hadoop release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Haifeng >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Aaron T. Myers [mailto:a...@cloudera.com] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:51 AM >>>>>> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: Hadoop encryption module as Apache Chimera incubator >>>>>> project >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Owen O'Malley >>>>>><omal...@apache.org> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe encryption is becoming a core part of Hadoop. I think >>>>>>>that moving core components out of Hadoop is bad from a project >>>>>>>management perspective. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Although it's certainly true that encryption capabilities (in >>>>>>HDFS, YARN, >>>>>> etc.) are becoming core to Hadoop, I don't think that should >>>>>>really influence whether or not the non-Hadoop-specific encryption >>>>>>routines should be part of the Hadoop code base, or part of the >>>>>>code base of another project that Hadoop depends on. If Chimera had >>>>>>existed as a library hosted at ASF when HDFS encryption was first >>>>>>developed, HDFS probably would have just added that as a dependency >>>>>>and been done with it. I don't think we would've copy/pasted the >>>>>>code for Chimera into the Hadoop code base. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> To put it another way, a bug in the encryption routines will >>>>>>> likely become a security problem that security@hadoop needs to >>>>>>>hear about. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think >>>>>>> adding a separate project in the middle of that communication >>>>>>>chain is a good idea. The same applies to data corruption >>>>>>>problems, and so on... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't the same true of all the libraries that Hadoop currently >>>>>>depends upon? If the commons-httpclient library (or commons-codec, >>>>>>or commons-io, or guava, or...) has a security vulnerability, we >>>>>>need to know about it so that we can update our dependency to a >>>>>>fixed version. >>>>>>This case doesn't seem materially different than that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > It may be good to keep at generalized place(As in the >>>>>>> > discussion, we thought that place could be Apache Commons). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apache Commons is a collection of *Java* projects, so Chimera as >>>>>>> a JNI-based library isn't a natural fit. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Could very well be that Apache Commons's charter would preclude >>>>>>Chimera. >>>>>> You probably know better than I do about that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Furthermore, Apache Commons doesn't have its own security list so >>>>>>> problems will go to the generic secur...@apache.org. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That seems easy enough to remedy, if they wanted to, and besides I'm >>>>>>not sure why that would influence this discussion. In my experience >>>>>>projects that don't have a separate security@project.a.o mailing list >>>>>>tend to just handle security issues on their private@project.a.o >>>>>>mailing list, which seems fine to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you think that Apache Commons is a better home than Hadoop? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm certainly not at all wedded to Apache Commons, that just seemed >>>>>>like a natural place to put it to me. Could be that a brand new TLP >>>>>>might make more sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> I *do* think that if other non-Hadoop projects want to make use of >>>>>>Chimera, which as I understand it is the goal which started this >>>>>>thread, then Chimera should exist outside of Hadoop so that: >>>>>> >>>>>> a) Projects that have nothing to do with Hadoop can just depend >>>>>>directly on Chimera, which has nothing Hadoop-specific in there. >>>>>> >>>>>> b) The Hadoop project doesn't have to export/maintain/concern itself >>>>>>with yet another publicly-consumed interface. >>>>>> >>>>>> c) Chimera can have its own (presumably much faster) release cadence >>>>>>completely separate from Hadoop. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Aaron T. Myers >>>>>> Software Engineer, Cloudera >>>
