[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5405?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15318223#comment-15318223 ]
Till Toenshoff commented on MESOS-5405: --------------------------------------- {noformat} commit 90871a48f4f1a345950862a53efb78e0b9aadedb Author: Joerg Schad <jo...@mesosphere.io> Date: Tue Jun 7 11:34:53 2016 +0200 Fixed documentation for MESOS-5405. As MESOS-5405 changes the fields in `Request` to optional, we need to update the documentation. Review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/48263/ {noformat} > Make fields in authorization::Request protobuf optional. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: MESOS-5405 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5405 > Project: Mesos > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Alexander Rukletsov > Assignee: Till Toenshoff > Priority: Blocker > Labels: mesosphere, security > Fix For: 1.0.0 > > > Currently {{authorization::Request}} protobuf declares {{subject}} and > {{object}} as required fields. However, in the codebase we not always set > them, which renders the message in the uninitialized state, for example: > * > https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/0bfd6999ebb55ddd45e2c8566db17ab49bc1ffec/src/common/http.cpp#L603 > * > https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/0bfd6999ebb55ddd45e2c8566db17ab49bc1ffec/src/master/http.cpp#L2057 > I believe that the reason why we don't see issues related to this is because > we never send authz requests over the wire, i.e., never serialize/deserialize > them. However, they are still invalid protobuf messages. Moreover, some > external authorizers may serialize these messages. > We can either ensure all required fields are set or make both {{subject}} and > {{object}} fields optional. This will also require updating local authorizer, > which should properly handle the situation when these fields are absent. We > may also want to notify authors of external authorizers to update their code > accordingly. > It looks like no deprecation is necessary, mainly because we > already—erroneously!—treat these fields as optional. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)