Thanks Rajini. One question: would it make sense for the client to
optimistically suggest its preferred SASL mechanism (or maybe mechanisms)
to avoid a roundtrip?
Ismael
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Following on from the KIP meeting on Tuesday, I have updated the KIP with a
> flow for negotiation of mechanisms to support multiple SASL mechanisms
> within a broker. I have also added a configurable Login interface to
> support custom mechanisms which require ticket refresh - requested by Tao
> Xiao.
>
> I will work on updating the PR in KAFKA-3149 over the next few days since
> it will be useful for review.
>
> All comments and suggestions are welcome.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:35 PM, tao xiao <xiaotao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a good approach to add provider in login module. Would love
> to
> > see updates in the PR to reflect the changes in Login and
> > AuthCallbackHandler.
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 at 19:31 Rajini Sivaram <
> rajinisiva...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Tao,
> > >
> > > We currently add the security provider in a static initializer in our
> > login
> > > module. This ensures that the security provider is always installed
> > before
> > > Kafka creates SaslServer/SaslClient. As you say, it is also possible to
> > > insert code into your application to add security provider before Kafka
> > > clients are created. Since you can also configure the JDK to add new
> > > security providers, I am not sure if there is value in adding more
> > > configuration in Kafka to add security providers.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:25 AM, tao xiao <xiaotao...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The callback works for me as long as it has access to Subject and
> > mechs.
> > > > The other thing is how we can inject the customized security provider
> > via
> > > > Security.addProvider()? If I want to implement my own SASL mech I
> need
> > to
> > > > call the addProvider() before SASL.create so that my own
> implementation
> > > of
> > > > SASLClient/Sever can be returned. Any thoughts on this? we can either
> > let
> > > > users inject the provider in their logic code before creating a
> > > > producer/consumer or Kafka does it for users
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 at 03:36 Rajini Sivaram <
> > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Tao,
> > > > >
> > > > > *javax.security.auth.callback.**CallbackHandler *is the standard
> way
> > in
> > > > > which SASL clients and server obtain additional mechanism specific
> > > > > input. *AuthCallbackHandler
> > > > > *simply extends this interface to propagate configuration
> > properties. I
> > > > was
> > > > > going to provide SASL mechanism and Subject to the callback
> handlers
> > as
> > > > > well since the default handlers use these.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your SaslServer/SaslClient implementation can obtain the Subject
> > using
> > > > > *Subject.getSubject(**AccessController.getContext(). *But it will
> be
> > > good
> > > > > to know if callback handlers would work for you - apart from
> standard
> > > > > callbacks like PasswordCallback, you can define your own callbacks
> > too
> > > if
> > > > > you require.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, tao xiao <xiaotao...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks Rajini. The other thing in my mind is that we should find
> a
> > > way
> > > > to
> > > > > > expose subject to SASL so that other mechanisms are able to use
> the
> > > > > > principal and credentials stored in subject to do authentication.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am thinking to have below interface that can be extended by
> users
> > > to
> > > > > > build the SASL client/server instead of having an AuthCallback.
> > With
> > > > this
> > > > > > interface users are able to add their own security provider
> before
> > > > > > client/server is returned by SASL. Any thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interface SaslClientBuilder {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SaslClient build(mechs, subject, host, otherparams)
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interface SaslServerBuilder {
> > > > > > SaslServer build(mechs, subject, host, otherparams)
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 at 18:54 Rajini Sivaram <
> > > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tao,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for the explanation. I couldn't find a standard Java
> > > > > interface
> > > > > > > that would be suitable, so will define one based on your
> > > requirement
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > update the KIP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:12 AM, tao xiao <
> xiaotao...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Rajini,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One requirement I have is to refresh the login token every X
> > > hours.
> > > > > > Like
> > > > > > > > what the Kerberos login does I need to have a background
> thread
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > refreshes the token periodically.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I understand most of the login logic would be simple but it
> is
> > > good
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can expose the logic login to users and let them decide what
> > they
> > > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > do. And we can have a fallback login component that is used
> if
> > > > users
> > > > > > dont
> > > > > > > > specify it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 at 20:07 Rajini Sivaram <
> > > > > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Tao,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you for the review. The changes I had in mind are in
> > the
> > > PR
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/812. Login for
> > > non-Kerberos
> > > > > > > > protocols
> > > > > > > > > contains very little logic. I was expecting that combined
> > with
> > > a
> > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > login module specified in JAAS configuration, this would
> give
> > > > > > > sufficient
> > > > > > > > > flexibility. Is there a specific usecase you have in mind
> > where
> > > > you
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > customize the Login code?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:15 AM, tao xiao <
> > > xiaotao...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Rajini,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think it makes sense to change LoginManager or Login to
> > an
> > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > > which users can extend to provide their own logic of
> login
> > > > > > otherwise
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > hard for users to implement a custom SASL mechanism but
> > have
> > > no
> > > > > > > control
> > > > > > > > > > over login
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 at 18:45 Ismael Juma <
> > ism...@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rajini,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. As stated in the KIP, it does not
> > > address
> > > > > > > > "Support
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > multiple SASL mechanisms within a broker". Maybe we
> > should
> > > > also
> > > > > > > > mention
> > > > > > > > > > > this in the "Rejected Alternatives" section with the
> > > > > reasoning. I
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > it's particularly relevant to understand if it's not
> > being
> > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > we don't think it's useful or due to the additional
> > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > complexity (it's probably a combination). If we think
> > this
> > > > > could
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > in the future, it would also be worth thinking about
> how
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > affected
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > we do KIP-43 first (ie will it be easier, harder, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > > > > > > > > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have just created KIP-43 to extend the SASL
> > > > implementation
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > support new SASL mechanisms.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-43%3A+Kafka+SASL+enhancements
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Comments and suggestions are appreciated.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rajini
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rajini
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Rajini
>
