Hi JB and Yufei, You make good points!
+1 to revising the config code to only put into responses what client really need. GET_CATALOG_CONFIG_PROPERTIES is currently provided specifically to allow admin users to restrict access to the wide properties bad. I would not mind removing it once config responses are trimmed down. In the short term, PR #5246 is a tool admin user may find helpful for managing existing servers. I support merging it now with the CHANGELOG adjustment proposed by JB and further improving config responses later. Thanks, Dmitri. On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 5:35 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks Yufei, I agree with the root problem. /v1/config returns the whole > catalog properties map as defaults. That mixes client-facing settings (e.g. > rest-page-size) with server-side ones (default-base-location, > polaris.config.cleanup.on.catalog.drop). Gating all of it on > CATALOG_READ_PROPERTIES is a blunt tool, and a client with only > table-scoped or namespace-scoped grants can lose settings it needs. That > was my concern with the earlier version of the PR (I shared on the thread). > > I see two separate questions: > 1. What belongs in /v1/config? An explicit client-facing config, with > server-only properties staying in the management API, is the cleaner > long-term design. It changes what the endpoint returns and what clients > see, so I would rather settle it in its own thread (more than inside > #5246). I'm happy to sketch a proposal on that. > 2. Should #5246 merge in the meantime? As Dmitri pointed out, the defaults > keep the old behavior, so nothing breaks in this release. The PR gives > operators and the Ranger/OPA authorizers a way to prepare. My preference is > to merge it as is, on the condition that we don't flip any defaults before > the client-facing config question is settled. I would also like that stated > in the CHANGELOG, so nobody reads the flag's eventual default flip as a > commitment. > > On GET_CATALOG_CONFIG_PROPERTIES: if we end up with an explicit > client-facing config, we may no longer need it. Since it's an operation > rather than a new privilege, the cost of keeping it for now is small. We > can revisit it when the follow-up lands. > > Regards > JB > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 6:34 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry for the late reply. After reviewing #5246, I think we should > > first decide which properties belong in /v1/config before adding > > GET_CATALOG_CONFIG_PROPERTIES. > > > > The Iceberg REST spec describes this endpoint as providing > > configuration for clients. Today, Polaris puts the entire catalog > > properties map into defaults. That mixes client settings like > > rest-page-size with server settings like default-base-location and > > polaris.config.cleanup.on.catalog.drop. > > > > The PR makes those defaults all-or-nothing based on > > CATALOG_READ_PROPERTIES. A client allowed to connect could therefore > > lose settings it needs. > > > > Could we instead explicitly define the client-facing configuration and > > return that, while keeping server-only properties in the management > > API? With that separation, I don’t see a need for > > GET_CATALOG_CONFIG_PROPERTIES. Authorization for the whole endpoint > > can be discussed separately. > > > > Yufei > > > > Yufei > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2026 at 8:55 AM Alex Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I also approved, +1 to merge. The PR is clean and we have a clear path > > > forward regarding updates to Ranger. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Alex > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 12:47 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > I approved [5246] in GH. > > > > > > > > From my POV the PR offers a reasonable path towards tighter authZ > > checks on > > > > the /config endpoint. It does not break any APIs at this time. > > > > > > > > I propose merging it on Oct 28. > > > > > > > > [5246] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5246 > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 9:17 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Yufei, > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure how we (Polaris community) can check the behaviour of > > (all) > > > > > existing clients. > > > > > > > > > > PR [5246] provides ways to configure AuthZ grants in internal RBAC > > and OPA > > > > > such that Polaris' behaviour would be the same as before the > change. > > > > > CHANGELOG entries inform users of this change. The onus is on users > > to > > > > > validate their specific clients and use cases and configure the > > system > > > > > appropriately. Corresponding Ranger Authorizer changes are to > follow > > soon. > > > > > > > > > > Note that config defaults result in _old_ Polaris behaviour now. > > Changes > > > > > to default behaviours will be introduced only after the next > > release. Users > > > > > will have enough time to prepare. > > > > > > > > > > Heads up: PR [5246] approaches a mergegeable state from my POV. > Only > > minor > > > > > merge conflicts remain. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > [5246] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5246 > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 6:22 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > 1) Always on: soft-hide catalog properties (defaults) unless the > > > > >> principal > > > > >> has CATALOG_READ_PROPERTIES. Prefix / endpoints still returned so > > clients > > > > >> can bootstrap. > > > > >> > > > > >> The hiding may break existing IRC clients as well, given that > > clients > > > > >> won't > > > > >> be able to get any "serve default" and "server overrides" now in > > case of > > > > >> table-only permission. > > > > >> > > > > >> Can we double check this behavior change(hiding catalog > properties) > > won't > > > > >> break existing IRC clients or cause a meaningful client-side > > behavior > > > > >> changes? > > > > >> > > > > >> Yufei > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 11:03 AM vignesh a <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks all for the feedback > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Yufei’s point: GET_CATALOG_CONFIG_PROPERTIES is an > authorizable > > > > >> > operation, not a new privilege. The RBAC mapping reuses the > > existing > > > > >> > CATALOG_READ_PROPERTIES privilege (same idea as management > > getCatalog). > > > > >> > The separate operation is mainly for non-native authorizers > > > > >> (Ranger/OPA), > > > > >> > where the SPI is operation-based. Dmitri already covered that > > on-thread. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On JB’s concern about CATALOG_READ_CONFIG: I agree /v1/config is > > the > > > > >> > Iceberg bootstrap call, and a hard 403 there is painful for > > principals > > > > >> > that only have table- or namespace-scoped grants. Catalog-path > > AuthZ > > > > >> does > > > > >> > not see those scoped grants, so day-one enforcement would break > > those > > > > >> > clients. That is why the PR keeps > > ENFORCE_CATALOG_CONFIG_AUTHORIZATION > > > > >> > default false - the privilege is grantable now, but the endpoint > > itself > > > > >> > is not hard-gated until an operator opts in. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > So today the PR is really two layers: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > 1) Always on: soft-hide catalog properties (defaults) unless the > > > > >> > principal has CATALOG_READ_PROPERTIES. Prefix / endpoints > still > > > > >> > returned so clients can bootstrap. This is the actual > > disclosure fix. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > 2) Opt-in: hard-gate the whole endpoint behind > > CATALOG_READ_CONFIG when > > > > >> > the flag is true (for folks who want every REST path covered > by > > > > >> AuthZ). > > > > >> > > > > > >> > JB’s suggestion to ship only (1) and drop (2) is a fair > > alternative if > > > > >> > the list prefers zero bootstrap risk. I’m fine either way: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > A) Keep both, flag default false, open a follow-up to flip the > > default > > > > >> > later (current PR shape), or > > > > >> > B) Narrow #5246 [1] to properties soft-hide only; revisit > > endpoint > > > > >> > hard-gate > > > > >> > in a later DISCUSS if we still want it. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > In my pov: A matches “all REST endpoints should eventually have > > AuthZ” > > > > >> > without breaking upgrades day one, but I’ll switch to B if > that’s > > the > > > > >> > preferred consensus. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > WDYT?? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5246 [1] > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > >> > Vignesh > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Thu, 3 Sept 2026 at 20:06, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > [email protected]> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Hi Vignesh > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > It's actually a valid problem: > CatalogConfigHandler.getConfig() > > > > >> > > doesn't authz at all today. It means any authenticated > > principal who > > > > >> > > guesses a warehouse name gets the catalog's properties. > Clearly > > worth > > > > >> > > to fix. > > > > >> > > But, also, it returns PolarisEntity.getPropertiesAsMap() > > (should be > > > > >> > > user-visible properties), without internalProperties. So the > > exposure > > > > >> > > is admin-set config like default-base-location, not secrets. > > So, not > > > > >> > > super "criticial". > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > I think it makes sense to "hide" defaults behind > > > > >> > > CATALOG_READ_PROPERTIES. It's similar to getCatalog path. This > > should > > > > >> > > be the only thing in the PR imho. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > I don't think the new CATALOG_READ_CONFIG property makes > sense. > > > > >> > > /v1/config is the Iceberg bootstrap call, every client makes > it > > before > > > > >> > > doing anything. Your PR leans on TABLE_READ_PROPERTIES, but > > that only > > > > >> > > works for catalog-level grants. A principal granted read one > > namespace > > > > >> > > or one table gets a 403 and cannot bootstrap at all. So I > don't > > think > > > > >> > > it's a good idea, it's actually a unnecessary breaking change. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Regards > > > > >> > > JB > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 2:48 PM vignesh a < > > [email protected]> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Following the review discussion on #5246 [1] GET /v1/config > > > > >> previously > > > > >> > > had > > > > >> > > > no AuthZ at all, so any authenticated principal that knew a > > > > >> warehouse > > > > >> > > name > > > > >> > > > could read the full catalog properties (defaults). Not great > > for > > > > >> > > > multi-tenant setups. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Proposal: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > 1. Always-on (no new privilege needed for the sensitive > > bit): > > > > >> > > Soft-hide > > > > >> > > > defaults unless the principal has CATALOG_READ_PROPERTIES > > (same > > > > >> idea > > > > >> > > as > > > > >> > > > management getCatalog). Prefix, endpoints, etc. are still > > > > >> returned > > > > >> > so > > > > >> > > > clients can bootstrap. > > > > >> > > > 2. New privilege CATALOG_READ_CONFIG (op > > GET_CATALOG_CONFIG), > > > > >> > > grantable > > > > >> > > > now. Hard 403 on the whole endpoint only if: > > > > >> > > > polaris.features."ENFORCE_CATALOG_CONFIG_AUTHORIZATION" = > > true > > > > >> > > Default is > > > > >> > > > false, so operators can grant first (or rely on > > catalog-level > > > > >> > content > > > > >> > > > subsumption) and then turn enforcement on. > > > > >> > > > 3. Later we flip the default to true and drop the flag. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Why not hard-on in one shot: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Catalog-path checks don’t see table/ns-scoped grants → > > day-one > > > > >> > > enforce > > > > >> > > > can break least-privilege clients on upgrade. > > > > >> > > > - Ranger still maps both ops to catalog-properties-read > (no > > > > >> > dedicated > > > > >> > > > access type yet) → need time to update the service def + > > grants. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Basically two-phase behaviour in one binary: permissions > > available > > > > >> now, > > > > >> > > > enforcement when people are ready. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I can also split GET_CATALOG_CONFIG into a follow-up PR if > > that is > > > > >> > > > preferred — the flag makes that easy either way. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Mainly interested whether default-false + later flip is > > acceptable, > > > > >> or > > > > >> > if > > > > >> > > > hard-on in a single release (with the breakage risk) is > > preferred. > > > > >> [1] > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5246 > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, Vignesh > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
