> On Dec. 30, 2014, 10:46 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote:
> > shell/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/shell/ShellOptionsJC.java, line 210
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29386/diff/4/?file=803175#file803175line210>
> >
> >     Why is username the "short" user name? Is that unique in Kerberos? If 
> > not, the long version should be used everywhere instead. Otherwise, one 
> > user can appear to be another in logs, etc.
> >     
> >     If "getShortUserName" is not unique, it should avoided everywhere.
> 
> Josh Elser wrote:
>     Check out: 
> http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/krb5-1.5/krb5-1.5.4/doc/krb5-user/What-is-a-Kerberos-Principal_003f.html
>     
>     Kerberos principals are of the form: primary/instance@realm. Kerberos 
> principals are typically categorized as users and services. A user is not 
> qualified to a single instance (a host) and represent authentication across 
> the realm. For example, els...@example.com means that I can "roam". 
> Conversely, a service is typically "fixed" to a specific host. For example, 
> accumulo/node1.example....@example.com means that there is a process, logged 
> in as 'accumulo' on the host 'node1.example.com'. That service can't be run 
> on any other host. Now, an important note if someone actually creates a 
> principal "accum...@example.com" this is unique with respect to any other 
> "accumulo/`host`@EXAMPLE.COM" principal. I'm not sure if we need to do 
> anything else other than convention of kerberos principals, or if we should 
> be including the instance in "our" username when present.
>     
>     This kind of ties back into the SystemCredentials discussion again.
> 
> Christopher Tubbs wrote:
>     Okay, so a smart configuration would make shortnames unique. However, 
> UserGroupInformation returns only the `primary` for the short name. This 
> means that user names will have to be unique across realms and instances. 
> Right now, you are storing permissions using the short name. So, any user 
> with the same primary, will be able to masquerade as any other user with the 
> same primary from a different instance and/or realm, and be able to user 
> their permissions and authorizations. That's the problem with the shortname 
> here. That's very unexpected.
> 
> Josh Elser wrote:
>     Bingo. If you look at how HDFS does their configuration, this is the same 
> convention. The lack of documentation from me leaves something to be desired 
> here, and I apologize for that.
>     
>     To save you looking at HDFS (if you care not to look), you'll see that an 
> HDFS process uses a given principal with a special replacement string 
> `_HOST`. The common convention is to use something like 
> `dn/_h...@example.com` (the realm is unimportant for this example). This 
> ensures that the same configuration files can be used across all hosts in the 
> HDFS instance, and Hadoop dynamically replaces `_HOST` with the FQDN of the 
> host. Thus, there's an implicit link that all `dn/*@EXAMPLE.COM` can act as 
> datanodes and this is protected by the fact that access to the KDC is 
> restricted (you can't make your own user). The circle of trust is two-fold: 
> having a keytab with the correct principal and that Hadoop is requires that 
> specific configuration (which restricts the principal).
> 
> Christopher Tubbs wrote:
>     My concerns here are more about the impact on users, than for the system 
> credentials. I don't know what HDFS is doing, but if they aren't (minimally) 
> checking the realm when checking permissions/access on an authenticated 
> principal, then they are less secure than I think we should be. Referencing 
> HDFS also seems to imply that we're not so much doing Kerberos, as we are 
> implementing HDFS-specific Kerberos conventions (which are less secure, with 
> respect to data authorizations/permissions within Accumulo, than I'm 
> comfortable with).

bq. if they aren't (minimally) checking the realm when checking 
permissions/access on an authenticated principal

Do you mean the instance instead of the realm? In the case of a single realm, 
the KDC is going to verify the correct realm. Assuming you meant the instance 
though (the optional "/hostname"), it's typical that a user has the ability to 
use their credentials anywhere. Thus, you typically see principals without 
instances for actual users. As far as I understand it, that's what HDFS tends 
to follow and what I tried to as well. Accumulo doesn't care where you come 
from, just what your name is and that you have valid credentials. I don't think 
we're being substantially less secure by not including the instance in the 
Accumulo principal.


> On Dec. 30, 2014, 10:46 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote:
> > server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/security/handler/KerberosAuthenticator.java,
> >  line 41
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29386/diff/4/?file=803164#file803164line41>
> >
> >     I don't think this should be so tightly coupled with the 
> > ZKAuthenticator. It doesn't seem that this coupling is necessary to provide 
> > authentication functionality.
> >     
> >     Have a different implementation of an Authenticator that hijacks the 
> > data storage of another implementation, could be quite confusing to 
> > administrators, especially if they need to swap out the implementation.
> >     
> >     See ACCUMULO-1300 and related issues for other options.
> 
> Josh Elser wrote:
>     I understand the intentions for ACCUMULO-1300; however, that's not 
> implemented. Being able to leverage the existing ZKAuthorizor was wonderful 
> so I really don't want to move away from how this fundamentally works.
>     
>     Shouldn't the Authenticator and Authorizor be fixed per instance 
> (allowing reset via `accumulo init --reset-security` or w/e)? What do you 
> actually want changed aside from documentation to make it clear to 
> administrators (I haven't written any documentation yet).
> 
> Christopher Tubbs wrote:
>     So, I pointed out in the conversation around ACCUMULO-259, that I would 
> prefer a pluggable security module that integrated all the security-related 
> functions, because they are so dependent on each other. However, they were 
> implemented as 3 separately configurable pluggable components. I would still 
> like to see them merged (which doesn't preclude making one from modular 
> components themselves).
>     
>     For now, I'm not really sure what it means for somebody to "create a 
> user" when the authenticator already validates them. That's why it's 
> confusing. Are we essentially making ZKAuthenticator Kerberos-aware, or are 
> we providing a separate Kerberos Authenticator? That's really what it boils 
> down to for me. It seems like we're doing a hybrid... but I think we should 
> solidify on one or the other.
> 
> Josh Elser wrote:
>     I view it as a Kerberos Authenticator. The implementation details of that 
> authenticator is that is happens to persist information into ZK to handle 
> things like permissions and authorizations, but a user doesn't have to know 
> that to use it. We could, hypothetically, swap out ZK for any other 
> persistent store for that information and it would continue to work.
>     
>     What would help alleviate your confusion? More javadocs? A different 
> class name?
> 
> Christopher Tubbs wrote:
>     Well, part is documentation. Part is behavior.
>     
>     If it's a separate authenticator, we should make sure that it does not 
> use the same storage area in such a tightly coupled way. It should not, for 
> instance, be setting things that look like passwords, and "create local 
> user", "list local users", and "delete local users" should be unsupported 
> client side operations, just as you've done with "change password" (since 
> users are managed within Kerberos). We already share storage between the 
> ZKAuthenticator and the corresponding permissions handler and authorizer, so 
> it's probably okay to share the directory identified with the principal. 
> However, it can seamlessly create this directory as needed.
>     
>     Mainly, I'm thinking the more we can separate the "local user" management 
> functions from the KerberosAuthenticator, the better, since users are managed 
> in Kerberos. Some of my concerns are with the current state of things, but 
> I'm hoping not to exacerbate the problems I see with the current 
> implementations. I don't want to make it harder to make improvements later. 
> I'd rather move towards a better design, then simply add features to the 
> existing ad-hoc design.

bq. It should not, for instance, be setting things that look like passwords, 
and "create local user", "list local users", and "delete local users" should be 
unsupported client side operations, just as you've done with "change password" 
(since users are managed within Kerberos)

Thanks for pointing that out. That helps me understand where your concerns are 
coming from. Perhaps it would be cleaner to just keep a reference to the 
ZkAuthenticator as a delegate (instead of extending it). This would give us a 
bit more obvious control over what's happening.

bq. I'm thinking the more we can separate the "local user" management functions 
from the KerberosAuthenticator, the better, since users are managed in 
Kerberos. Some of my concerns are with the current state of things, but I'm 
hoping not to exacerbate the problems I see with the current implementations

Agreed, those are very.. awkward, presently. Is making sure that we throw 
exceptions from KerberosAuthenticator when we call these non-sensical methods a 
sufficient change? Then, we can move to a better design later on like you said?


- Josh


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/29386/#review66382
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Dec. 31, 2014, 9:24 p.m., Josh Elser wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/29386/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 31, 2014, 9:24 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for accumulo.
> 
> 
> Bugs: ACCUMULO-2815
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2815
> 
> 
> Repository: accumulo
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> ACCUMULO-2815 Initial support for Kerberos client authentication.
> 
> Leverage SASL transport provided by Thrift which can speak GSSAPI, which 
> Kerberos implements. Introduced...
> 
> * An Accumulo KerberosToken which is an AuthenticationToken to validate users.
> * Custom thrift processor and invocation handler to ensure server RPCs have a 
> valid KRB identity and Accumulo authentication.
> * A KerberosAuthenticator which extends ZKAuthenticator to support Kerberos 
> identities seamlessly.
> * New ClientConf variables to use SASL transport and pass Kerberos server 
> principal
> * Updated ClientOpts and Shell opts to transparently use a KerberosToken when 
> SASL is enabled (no extra client work).
> 
> I believe this is the "bare minimum" for Kerberos support. They are also 
> grossly lacking in unit and integration tests. I believe that I might have 
> somehow broken the client address string in the server (I saw log messages 
> with client: null, but I'm not sure if it's due to these changes or not). A 
> necessary limitation in the Thrift server used is that, like the SSL 
> transport, the SASL transport cannot presently be used with the 
> TFramedTransport, which means none of the [half]async thrift servers will 
> function with this -- we're stuck with the TThreadPoolServer.
> 
> Performed some contrived benchmarks on my laptop (while still using it 
> myself) to get at big-picture view of the performance impact against "normal" 
> operation and Kerberos alone. Each "run" was the duration to ingest 100M 
> records using continuous-ingest, timed with `time`, using 'real'.
> 
> THsHaServer (our default), 6 runs:
> 
> Avg: 10m7.273s (607.273s)
> Min: 9m43.395s
> Max: 10m52.715s
> 
> TThreadPoolServer (no SASL), 5 runs:
> 
> Avg: 11m16.254s (676.254s)
> Min: 10m30.987s
> Max: 12m24.192s
> 
> TThreadPoolServer+SASL/GSSAPI (these changes), 6 runs:
> 
> Avg: 13m17.187s (797.187s)
> Min: 10m52.997s
> Max: 16m0.975s
> 
> The general takeway is that there's about 15% performance degredation in its 
> initial state which is in the realm of what I expected (~10%).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/cli/ClientOpts.java f6ea934 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/ClientConfiguration.java 
> 6fe61a5 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/impl/ClientContext.java 
> e75bec6 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/impl/ConnectorImpl.java 
> f481cc3 
>   
> core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/impl/ThriftTransportKey.java
>  6dc846f 
>   
> core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/impl/ThriftTransportPool.java
>  5da803b 
>   
> core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/security/tokens/KerberosToken.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/conf/Property.java e054a5f 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/rpc/FilterTransport.java 
> PRE-CREATION 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/rpc/SaslConnectionParams.java 
> PRE-CREATION 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/rpc/TTimeoutTransport.java 
> 6eace77 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/rpc/ThriftUtil.java 09bd6c4 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/rpc/UGIAssumingTransport.java 
> PRE-CREATION 
>   
> core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/rpc/UGIAssumingTransportFactory.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/security/Credentials.java 
> 525a958 
>   core/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/cli/TestClientOpts.java ff49bc0 
>   
> core/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/ClientConfigurationTest.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> core/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/conf/ClientConfigurationTest.java 
> 40be70f 
>   
> core/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/rpc/SaslConnectionParamsTest.java 
> PRE-CREATION 
>   proxy/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/proxy/Proxy.java 4b048eb 
>   
> server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/AccumuloServerContext.java
>  09ae4f4 
>   server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/init/Initialize.java 
> 046cfb5 
>   
> server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/rpc/TCredentialsUpdatingInvocationHandler.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/rpc/TCredentialsUpdatingWrapper.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/rpc/TServerUtils.java 
> 641c0bf 
>   
> server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/rpc/ThriftServerType.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/security/SecurityOperation.java
>  5e81018 
>   
> server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/security/SecurityUtil.java
>  29e4939 
>   
> server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/security/SystemCredentials.java
>  a59d57c 
>   
> server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/security/handler/KerberosAuthenticator.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/thrift/UGIAssumingProcessor.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> server/base/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/AccumuloServerContextTest.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> server/base/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/rpc/TCredentialsUpdatingInvocationHandlerTest.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> server/base/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/security/SystemCredentialsTest.java
>  4202a7e 
>   server/gc/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/gc/SimpleGarbageCollector.java 
> 93a9a49 
>   
> server/gc/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/gc/GarbageCollectWriteAheadLogsTest.java
>  f98721f 
>   
> server/gc/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/gc/SimpleGarbageCollectorTest.java
>  99558b8 
>   
> server/gc/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/gc/replication/CloseWriteAheadLogReferencesTest.java
>  cad1e01 
>   server/master/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/master/Master.java 12195fa 
>   server/tracer/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/tracer/TraceServer.java 
> 7e33300 
>   server/tserver/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/tserver/TabletServer.java 
> d5c1d2f 
>   shell/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/shell/Shell.java 58308ff 
>   shell/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/shell/ShellOptionsJC.java 8167ef8 
>   shell/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/shell/ShellConfigTest.java 0e72c8c 
>   shell/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/shell/ShellOptionsJCTest.java 
> PRE-CREATION 
>   test/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/test/functional/ZombieTServer.java 
> eb84533 
>   
> test/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/test/performance/thrift/NullTserver.java
>  2ebc2e3 
>   
> test/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/security/SystemCredentialsIT.java
>  fb71f5f 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29386/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Ensure existing unit tests still function. Accumulo is functional and ran 
> continuous ingest multiple times using a client with only a Kerberos identity 
> (no user/password provided). Used MIT Kerberos with Apache Hadoop 2.6.0 and 
> Apache ZooKeeper 3.4.5.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Josh Elser
> 
>

Reply via email to