[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-3256?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13138788#comment-13138788
]
Hadoop QA commented on MAPREDUCE-3256:
--------------------------------------
+1 overall. Here are the results of testing the latest attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12501363/MAPREDUCE-3256-20111028.2_same
against trunk revision .
+1 @author. The patch does not contain any @author tags.
+1 tests included. The patch appears to include 10 new or modified tests.
+1 javadoc. The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.
+1 javac. The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac
compiler warnings.
+1 findbugs. The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs (version 1.3.9)
warnings.
+1 release audit. The applied patch does not increase the total number of
release audit warnings.
+1 core tests. The patch passed unit tests in .
+1 contrib tests. The patch passed contrib unit tests.
Test results:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-MAPREDUCE-Build/1197//testReport/
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-MAPREDUCE-Build/1197//console
This message is automatically generated.
> Authorization checks needed for AM->NM protocol
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MAPREDUCE-3256
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-3256
> Project: Hadoop Map/Reduce
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: applicationmaster, mrv2, nodemanager, security
> Affects Versions: 0.23.0
> Reporter: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
> Assignee: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 0.23.0
>
> Attachments: MAPREDUCE-3256-20111028.1.txt,
> MAPREDUCE-3256-20111028.2.txt, MAPREDUCE-3256-20111028.2_same
>
>
> We already authenticate requests to NM from any AM. We also need to authorize
> the requests, otherwise a rogue AM, *but with proper tokens and thus
> authenticated to talk to NM*, could either launch or kill a container with
> different ContainerID. We have two options:
> - Remove the explicit passing of the ContainerId as part of the API and
> instead get it from the RPC layer. In this case, we will need a
> ContainerToken for each container.
> - Do explicit authorization checks without relying on getting ContainerID
> from the RPC.
> One ContainerToken per container is a serious restriction. We anyways want to
> be able to use application-ACLS to, say, stop containers owned by others. So
> I am going to take the later route of explicit checks.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
