Ok, if no one have objections, I will restrict a map by strings only.
чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 17:20 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> > Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer = false
> is totally standalone entity and can be read without any external metadata
> Not exactly: type name and field names are unknown, you only have typeId,
> field ids and positions.
> There is one more Marshaller "mode": UNREGISTERED_TYPE_ID. In this mode,
> full type name is included in the binary object.
> However, field names are still missing and the class needs to be present to
> deserialize.
> That's why arbitrary objects should not be allowed in the handshake: in
> most cases they can't be decoded.
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:27 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <somefire...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Alexei, yes, compactFooter is used only in 1 place.
> >
> > ```
> >
> > BinaryWriterExImpl.marshal0() {
> >
> > BinaryClassDescriptor desc = ctx.descriptorForClass(cls);
> >
> > // descriptor transportation fails here
> >
> > ...
> >
> > desc.write(obj, this); // compactFooter here
> >
> > }
> >
> > ```
> >
> > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 14:15 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode binary
> values
> > > to
> > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability side
> > >
> > > There should be no need to put binary values to attributes. What's the
> > use
> > > case?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:08 PM Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class descriptor check.
> > > >
> > > > Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer =
> false
> > is
> > > > totally standalone entity and can be read without any external
> > metadata.
> > > > Dmitrii Ryabov can you double check ?
> > > >
> > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode binary
> values
> > > to
> > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability side.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:26, Nikita Amelchev <nsamelc...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for the hardcoded String type only
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:15, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Cross-platform binary objects are totally possible, all those
> > thin
> > > > > > clients support them.
> > > > > > - User attributes can be useful, no objections here
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I don't think we should allow arbitrary objects in user
> > > > > attributes.
> > > > > > Let's make them string only, much less to worry about.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And using attributes for authentication still seems weird and
> > dirty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:40 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > somefire...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class descriptor
> > check.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:23 Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 12:17, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > somefire...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add some
> > > features
> > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's why I want to allow primitives only. Any language
> can
> > > send
> > > > > > > numbers
> > > > > > > > > and strings.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In general it's possible to have cross-platform complex data
> > > > > structures,
> > > > > > > > for example see protobuf.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Binary marshaller, before packing object to byte[], will
> try
> > to
> > > > use
> > > > > > > > > discovery processor and send message containing class
> > > descriptor.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > clients don't have discovery. Furthermore, if we write
> binary
> > > > > > > marshaller
> > > > > > > > > without class descriptor synchronization, we can get
> objects
> > > with
> > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > class versions and corresponding exceptions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But we can say users to declare their classes in
> > > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties and current binary
> marshaller
> > > will
> > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > good.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This approach doesn't looks like cross-platform.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:13 Alex Plehanov <
> > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > User attributes also (besides authentication) can be used
> > to
> > > > pass
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > > > about an application that uses a client and then display
> > this
> > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > in monitoring tools. Other vendors use such approach
> > (Oracle
> > > > DB,
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > example, have DBMS_APPLICATION_INFO package, PostgreeSQL
> > have
> > > > > > > > > > application_name connection property and application
> > > > information
> > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > later in system views).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > About allowed data types: we should definitely limit
> > > attribute
> > > > > types
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > only primitive types. Thin client binary marshaller can't
> > > send
> > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > about custom types before the handshake.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 21:39, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > ptupit...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've looked through the PR more closely, trying to
> > > understand
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > > > > and there are some Java-specific things going on (left
> a
> > > > > comment).
> > > > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind that we have thin clients in
> Python,
> > > > > Node.js,
> > > > > > > > C++,
> > > > > > > > > > C#.
> > > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add some
> > > > features
> > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:21 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The approach with UserAttributes map looks dirty to
> me
> > > and
> > > > > raises
> > > > > > > > > > > > questions:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Why is UserAttributes property related to
> > > authentication?
> > > > > > > > > > > > - UserAttributes name implies that users can put
> there
> > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > want,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but what for? What are those additional use cases?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should focus on a specific problem at hand
> > and
> > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > > unnecessary future-proofing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > What are current and potential future custom
> > > authenticators
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > > of data do they need?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:28 PM Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> I think we should add this. It will provide an extra
> > > level
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > security.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> This approach is used in many products, for example
> in
> > > AWS
> > > > > > > (MFA).
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-sec-cred-types.html#multi-factor-authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 18:13, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > stku...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi, Pavel!
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sometimes single authentication factor is not
> > enough.
> > > > > > > Attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > allow to add extra factors flexibly.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:39 Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Token can be sent instead of a password (like
> git
> > > > works
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > tokens).
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > For now I don't see a reason to include
> attributes
> > > > into
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > message.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:32 PM Ilya Kasnacheev
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello!
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > One does not send security certificate as
> > > attribute.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > obtain
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > peer security certificate is to ask SSL engine
> > to
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Nevertheless, I can see how it can be useful
> > with
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > Kerberos,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> which is
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > token-based IIRC.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:20, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > somefire...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This map is something like user object from
> > > > > > > > > > > `SecurityCredentials`.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Sometimes login and password are not enough
> > for
> > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > checks.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> For
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > example, we can send security certificate
> and
> > > > > validate
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > authenticator.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:16 Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > isap...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Can you please explain your use case?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure I'm getting what is the
> > > motivation
> > > > of
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:11 PM Pavel
> > > Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> ptupit...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Honestly, I could not grasp the problem,
> > can
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >> in more
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > detail?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > What do we solve by adding a map with
> > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> client
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > protocol handshake?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:02 PM Dmitrii
> > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > somefire...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I want to add the possibility of
> sending
> > > > user
> > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > > >> attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > clients. And check them inside custom
> > > > > > > authenticator
> > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > There is an issue in hardcoded binary
> > > writer
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > JDBC
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `IgniteClient`.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This writer searches for a classes in
> > the
> > > > JDK
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties, and
> > tries
> > > to
> > > > > sync
> > > > > > > > > > > >> notdeclared
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cluster. But fails because current
> > > > > classloading
> > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > >> discovery.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'd like to keep this writer and allow
> > > only
> > > > > > > > primitive
> > > > > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `String`
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > for user attributes to prevent
> > unexpected
> > > > > fails. I
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > changing writer to one with heavy
> > > > > classloading.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Is it ok to restrict thin attributes
> to
> > > > > primitives
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 'String'?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12049
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
