Thanks Bryan.

If no other concerns, let me at least re-implement the PR for
HBASE-25051 based on the approach proposed here.

Bryan Beaudreault <bbeaudrea...@apache.org> 于2024年1月23日周二 21:40写道:
>
> Thanks for pulling this together Duo. I'll take a closer look at this after
> I finish up the 2.6.0 release.
>
> To me the only possibly controversial part is:
>
> > For HBASE-28321, it should be part of our rpc negotiation, where the
> server should return its server principal to the client, to let the client
> acquire the necessary ticket for authentication. For me, I do not think
> this will increase the security risk.
>
> I'm not a security or kerberos expert, so can't really speak to whether
> that's safe without some deeper investigation. If we can get clarity on
> that, then the rest seems mostly good.
>
> If anyone with kerberos security experience has opinions on that quote,
> that'd be a big help to keep this moving forward.
>
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 9:10 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > RpcConnectionRegistry was introduced in 2.5.0, and since it reduces
> > the load of zookeeper, I believe it has already been used by lots of
> > users.
> > We have already known that it can not work well with token(digest)
> > based authentication, and have already filed HBASE-25051 for it. and
> > recently, when fixing HBASE-28316, we found out that it could also be
> > broken if we choose to use different server principals for master and
> > region server, see HBASE-28321 for more details.
> > Since this is a very important feature and should have been widely
> > used among our users, I think we should fix these issues ASAP.
> > I've already worked on HBASE-25051 for a while and provided a workable
> > solution[1], so this time I took a deep thought and put up a design
> > doc[2], to address both HBASE-25051 and HBASE-28321.
> >
> > Please take a look. Any comments here or on the design doc are welcomed.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > 1. https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/5631
> > 2.
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cu-qzAdBGyBKM07aQP06RM0oeFSLPGtQFWuV_TDyBNg/edit?usp=sharing
> >

Reply via email to