https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20185
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Apekshit Sharma <a...@cloudera.com> wrote: > exactly what Duo said. > > Trying something.... > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:44 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think the problem is that, in MasterRpcService.execProcedure, we do not >> know the type of the Procedure so it is not possible for us to require >> different permissions for them. >> >> Please open an issue for this, maybe we need to push down the permission >> check for execProcedure/execProcedureWithRet down to a place where we >> know >> the actual type of the procedure. >> >> Thanks. >> >> 2018-03-13 3:52 GMT+08:00 Josh Elser <els...@apache.org>: >> >> > Thanks to Ted for digging down to find HBASE-19400 as the cause of this >> > one. >> > >> > @Appy, curious on whether my initial assessment was correct on how we >> got >> > here. Would like to know if this was a conscious decision on your part >> for >> > flushes :) >> > >> > >> > On 3/12/18 3:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote: >> > >> >> Table/Namespace/Global Admin sounds fine to me. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> In some $dayjob testing, we've noticed that flushing a table requires >> >>> ADMIN permission by virtue of submitting the FlushProcedure (not >> >>> consciously about the flush operation itself). >> >>> >> >>> I can see this going both ways, but I felt like ADMIN at the table >> level >> >>> is more appropriate than requiring the global ADMIN permission. >> >>> >> >>> Thoughts? >> >>> >> >>> - Josh >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > > > > -- > > -- Appy > -- -- Appy
