[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9184?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14970571#comment-14970571
 ] 

Mingliang Liu commented on HDFS-9184:
-------------------------------------

The failing tests can pass locally (Linux and Mac), and seem unrelated.

> Logging HDFS operation's caller context into audit logs
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-9184
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9184
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Mingliang Liu
>            Assignee: Mingliang Liu
>         Attachments: HDFS-9184.000.patch, HDFS-9184.001.patch, 
> HDFS-9184.002.patch, HDFS-9184.003.patch, HDFS-9184.004.patch, 
> HDFS-9184.005.patch, HDFS-9184.006.patch, HDFS-9184.007.patch, 
> HDFS-9184.008.patch, HDFS-9184.009.patch
>
>
> For a given HDFS operation (e.g. delete file), it's very helpful to track 
> which upper level job issues it. The upper level callers may be specific 
> Oozie tasks, MR jobs, and hive queries. One scenario is that the namenode 
> (NN) is abused/spammed, the operator may want to know immediately which MR 
> job should be blamed so that she can kill it. To this end, the caller context 
> contains at least the application-dependent "tracking id".
> There are several existing techniques that may be related to this problem.
> 1. Currently the HDFS audit log tracks the users of the the operation which 
> is obviously not enough. It's common that the same user issues multiple jobs 
> at the same time. Even for a single top level task, tracking back to a 
> specific caller in a chain of operations of the whole workflow (e.g.Oozie -> 
> Hive -> Yarn) is hard, if not impossible.
> 2. HDFS integrated {{htrace}} support for providing tracing information 
> across multiple layers. The span is created in many places interconnected 
> like a tree structure which relies on offline analysis across RPC boundary. 
> For this use case, {{htrace}} has to be enabled at 100% sampling rate which 
> introduces significant overhead. Moreover, passing additional information 
> (via annotations) other than span id from root of the tree to leaf is a 
> significant additional work.
> 3. In [HDFS-4680 | https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4680], there 
> are some related discussion on this topic. The final patch implemented the 
> tracking id as a part of delegation token. This protects the tracking 
> information from being changed or impersonated. However, kerberos 
> authenticated connections or insecure connections don't have tokens. 
> [HADOOP-8779] proposes to use tokens in all the scenarios, but that might 
> mean changes to several upstream projects and is a major change in their 
> security implementation.
> We propose another approach to address this problem. We also treat HDFS audit 
> log as a good place for after-the-fact root cause analysis. We propose to put 
> the caller id (e.g. Hive query id) in threadlocals. Specially, on client side 
> the threadlocal object is passed to NN as a part of RPC header (optional), 
> while on sever side NN retrieves it from header and put it to {{Handler}}'s 
> threadlocals. Finally in {{FSNamesystem}}, HDFS audit logger will record the 
> caller context for each operation. In this way, the existing code is not 
> affected.
> It is still challenging to keep "lying" client from abusing the caller 
> context. Our proposal is to add a {{signature}} field to the caller context. 
> The client choose to provide its signature along with the caller id. The 
> operator may need to validate the signature at the time of offline analysis. 
> The NN is not responsible for validating the signature online.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to