[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4198?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16179140#comment-16179140
]
Ankit Singhal commented on PHOENIX-4198:
----------------------------------------
bq. Since we already acquire the required locks before calling HTable.Batch
would that be atomic as well ?
Actually, still it will not be atomic, I changed the implementation to use
MultiRowMutationEndpoint instead of HTable.batch to fix it.(Thanks [~devaraj]
for the pointer)
bq.If a user has create access on the namespace can he create a view, or does
he also need read access on the data table to create the view?
User still needs read access on table.
bq.I think for creating an index a user should have create access for the
schema/namespace. While creating an index users that have read access on the
data table should also be granted read access on the index. Users that have
write access on the table should be granted write access on the index, and for
mutable indexes they should be given execute access on the data table (so that
the index metadata can be sent to the server).
Yep, that is already covered under PhoenixAccessController#grantAccessToUsers.
(this will be an automatic grant which can be turned off if suspected as
security issue)
I'm done with the fixes (including above issues mentioned by Josh and Sergey).
(Busy with day's job but will upload v3 soon.)
> Remove the need for users to have access to the Phoenix SYSTEM tables to
> create tables
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-4198
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4198
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Ankit Singhal
> Assignee: Ankit Singhal
> Labels: namespaces
> Fix For: 4.12.0
>
> Attachments: PHOENIX-4198.patch, PHOENIX-4198_v2.patch
>
>
> Problem statement:-
> A user who doesn't have access to a table should also not be able to modify
> Phoenix Metadata. Currently, every user required to have a write permission
> to SYSTEM tables which is a security concern as they can
> create/alter/drop/corrupt meta data of any other table without proper access
> to the corresponding physical tables.
> [~devaraj] recommended a solution as below.
> 1. A coprocessor endpoint would be implemented and all write accesses to the
> catalog table would have to necessarily go through that. The 'hbase' user
> would own that table. Today, there is MetaDataEndpointImpl that's run on the
> RS where the catalog is hosted, and that could be enhanced to serve the
> purpose we need.
> 2. The regionserver hosting the catalog table would do the needful for all
> catalog updates - creating the mutations as needed, that is.
> 3. The coprocessor endpoint could use Ranger to do necessary authorization
> checks before updating the catalog table. So for example, if a user doesn't
> have authorization to create a table in a certain namespace, or update the
> schema, etc., it can reject such requests outright. Only after successful
> validations, does it perform the operations (physical operations to do with
> creating the table, and updating the catalog table with the necessary
> mutations).
> 4. In essence, the code that implements dealing with DDLs, would be hosted in
> the catalog table endpoint. The client code would be really thin, and it
> would just invoke the endpoint with the necessary info. The additional thing
> that needs to be done in the endpoint is the validation of authorization to
> prevent unauthorized users from making changes to someone else's
> tables/schemas/etc. For example, one should be able to create a view on a
> table if he has read access on the base table. That mutation on the catalog
> table would be permitted. For changing the schema (adding a new column for
> example), the said user would need write permission on the table... etc etc.
> Thanks [~elserj] for the write-up.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
