Yep, I totally understand what the problem is and respect how we got
ourselves here. 20185 is on my list to review today.
Thanks for taking it up, Appy.
On 3/13/18 7:41 AM, Apekshit Sharma wrote:
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
