[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13294?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14370514#comment-14370514
 ] 

Jerry He commented on HBASE-13294:
----------------------------------

Right the problem is that it shares connections.  
But users can call ConnectionFactory.createConnection(conf) directly and close 
it after use. Visibility security test cases do this.
Any good advantage of adding another getNewConnection() in the UTIL class?  Why 
not just add a big warning comment in the TEST_UTIL.getConnection() saying it 
shares connection?

> Fix the critical ancient loopholes in security testing infrastructure.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-13294
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13294
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Srikanth Srungarapu
>            Assignee: Srikanth Srungarapu
>         Attachments: HBASE-13294.patch
>
>
> Unfortunately, the "verifyDenied" method doesn't fail when action parameter 
> returns null. The relevant code snippet
> {code}
> try {
>         Object obj = user.runAs(action);
>         if (requireException) {
>           fail("Expected exception was not thrown for user '" + 
> user.getShortName() + "'");
>         }
>         if (obj != null && obj instanceof List<?>) {
>           List<?> results = (List<?>) obj;
>           if (results != null && !results.isEmpty()) {
>             fail("Unexpected results for user '" + user.getShortName() + "'");
>           }
>         }
>       }
> {code}
> As you can see, when obj is null, it returns silently. 
> Fixing this issue has uncovered another major bug. While constructing 
> actions, we're using TEST_UTIL.getConnection(), which replaces the "doAs" 
> user with the user who initiated the connection. I really am grateful to 
> [~mbertozzi] without whom debugging this would have been a nightmare. 
> Now, fixing these two issues have uncovered more issues in our tests :). The 
> main one is we're allowing the table owner to truncate table in code. But, in 
> test, we're not allowing him. We should either remove the code that allows 
> owner or document that the table owner can truncate table.
> The other minor issues include granting permissions to namespace, but 
> checking whether user was able to access tables inside other namespace.  
> That's it, folks! 



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

Reply via email to