Hi Ashish, A few comments on the proposal:
1. In Kafka, we don't use use getter convention generally. However, the other methods in the `Authorizer` interface do follow the getter convention, which is unfortunate. So, I am OK with the name you suggested (getSupportedPrincipalTypes instead of supportedPrincipalTypes), but I wanted to mention this in case others have a different opinion. 2. The proposed change to the Authorizer trait (adding a method with a default implementation) is source compatible, but _not_ binary compatible. So, it won't be possible for someone to implement the Authorizer and compile it once so that it works with both Kafka 0.9.0.x and Kafka 0.10.0.x. Not sure how much of an issue this is, but it's worth mentioning it in the KIP. 3. If an Authorizer wanted to support any type of principal without specifying them, is there a way to do that? Is it something that we want to support? Before the KIP was proposed, there was a discussion in the PR about different principal types potentially being used by the authentication layer where the Authorizer is agnostic. 4. There is a PR for introducing a "group" principal type ( https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/483/files), would that have any impact on this proposal? Ismael On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hello Harsha, > > Pinging again. This is a minor KIP and it has been lying around for quite > some time. If providing supported principal types via a config is what you > suggest, I am fine with it. > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Harsha <ka...@harsha.io> wrote: > > > >> Why we need to add this additional method just for validation. This will > >> invalidate all the existing authorizer implementations. > > > > As PrincipalTypes is implementation specific, wouldn't it be required for > > users to know what principal types they can use in add/removeAcls? > > > > All the existing authorizer implementations will continue to work, as the > > method by default will return List(User), as User is the only principal > > type that is supported out of the box as of now. Let me know if I missed > > your question here. > > > > > >> Why can't we add > >> the logic for validation and pass it as authorizer config. > >> > > Do you mean passing PrincipalTypes as authorizer config? If I am getting > > your question correctly, then we are asking users to be aware of what > > PrincipalTypes an authorizer supports. That defeats the purpose of > > validation, right? > > > >> > >> -Harsha > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016, at 04:33 PM, Ashish Singh wrote: > >> > + Parth, Harsha > >> > > >> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Thanks Gwen. > >> > > > >> > > @Parth, @Harsha pinging you guys for your feedback. Based on > >> discussion on > >> > > JIRA, we have following open questions. > >> > > > >> > > 1. > >> > > > >> > > How to allow an authorizer implementation to specify supported > >> > > principal types? > >> > > > >> > > An alternative of providing supported Principal types via > >> interface is > >> > > via a config option. Having a config option will be helpful for > >> certain > >> > > third party implementations that uses SimpleAclAuthorizer but > >> support more > >> > > PrincipalTypes. However, it requires adds one more config. > >> > > > >> > > 2. > >> > > > >> > > ACLs validation should be done by client or by authorizer? > >> > > > >> > > Once this method is added we expect the Client of the authorizer > >> to do > >> > > the validation on principal types and the authorizer will still > >> not do any > >> > > validation by it self. As an alternative we can add the > validation > >> at > >> > > Authorizer level. Having validation done at client side enables > >> clients to > >> > > fail fast for invalid principal types, whereas implementing it at > >> > > authorization level removes the requirement of having the > >> validation done > >> > > on each client implementation. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Ashish, > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm neutral on this (+0), but would be good to have feedback from > >> > >> Harsha and Parth. If you can get their "sounds good", we can > probably > >> > >> get it through fairly soon and in time for 0.10.0. > >> > >> > >> > >> Gwen > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Here is link to the KIP, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-50+-+Enhance+Authorizer+interface+to+be+aware+of+supported+Principal+Types > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Ashish Singh < > asi...@cloudera.com> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> Hi Guys, > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> I would like to initiate a discuss thread on KIP-50. Kafka > >> authorizer > >> > >> is > >> > >> >> agnostic of principal types it supports, so are the acls CRUD > >> methods > >> > >> >> in kafka.security.auth.Authorizer. The intent behind is to keep > >> Kafka > >> > >> >> authorization pluggable, which is really great. However, this > >> leads to > >> > >> Acls > >> > >> >> CRUD methods not performing any check on validity of acls, as > >> they are > >> > >> not > >> > >> >> aware of what principal types Authorizer implementation > supports. > >> This > >> > >> >> opens up space for lots of user errors, KAFKA-3097 > >> > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3097> for an > >> instance. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> This KIP proposes adding a getSupportedPrincipalTypes method to > >> > >> authorizer > >> > >> >> and use that for acls verification during acls CRUD. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Feedbacks and comments are welcome. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> -- > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Regards, > >> > >> >> Ashish > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > -- > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Regards, > >> > >> > Ashish > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Ashish > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Ashish > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > Ashish > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > Ashish >
