Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records
Thanks for the response I'm pretty much tied to Phoenix 4.14.2-HBase-1.4 as we are using Amazon EMR. Looks like I can get the table using the same deprecated method that Phoenix does: tablename comes from the Mutation kvPair in the original fragment HTableInterface hTable = conn.getQueryServices().getTable(tableName); hTable.batch(mutationList); This saves the data without having to do a jdbc commit(). So it 'looks' like it works, which brings me to the next problem, how to confirm! Time to inspect the HBase API... That's a fight for another day Thanks again. On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 23:37 -0400, Billy Watson wrote: > I ran into this too with other code. Make sure you’re on the same > API. HBase 2’s APIs changed heavily so you may have to do some > googling for docs to convert the above code into something usable in > your version of the HBase API. > > Also for your original problem, I’m not sure if Apache Ranger > supports row-level yet in their HBase plugin but you can certainly > add that functionality to make what you’re talking about a LOT easier > to maintain. > > Good luck, > > Billy Watson > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 23:05 Simon Mottram < > simon.mott...@cucumber.co.nz> wrote: > > Hi Ankit > > > > Getting stuck into this, but I am having trouble finding out how to > > persist the ACL mutations > > > > The updates to the mutations aren't being persisted as far as I can > > tell. I see in your code you are using htable.batch(). > > > > I'm struggling to find a way to that object, I can get a PTable > > from > > the connection using the byte[] tablename but PTable doesn't have > > the > > batch() method. > > > > I'm also unclear on how the htable.batch() method works with > > connection.commit(). Is commit required? > > > > I have a horrible feeling that the mutations require an Hbase > > connection rather than Phoenix and I have to go direct to Hbase API > > > > Best Regards and thanks for the help > > > > Simon > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 19:06 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote: > > > >>would it be best to > > > use the HBase API for creating the data. > > > yes, you can use HBase API but you need to ensure that Phoenix > > Data > > > type APIs are used to > > > convert your column values into bytes and also while creating a > > > composite key(if applicable). > > > otherwise you would not be able to read data from Phoenix when > > using > > > different data types > > > other than varchar or unsigned_bigint. > > > > > > >> The sparse nature of the data means > > > that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix > > > would > > > have a problem with that. > > > Phoenix supports dynamic columns so you should not have a problem > > > with that. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Ankit Singhal > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:24 PM Simon Mottram < > > > simon.mott...@cucumber.co.nz> wrote: > > > > Hi Ankit > > > > > > > > Thats very useful, many thanks. > > > > > > > > Before I dive into using Phoenix (which has given me a torrid > > time > > > > over > > > > the last few days!), is using Phoenix the best option given > > that > > > > I'm > > > > doing some low level access to Cell information, or would it be > > > > best to > > > > use the HBase API for creating the data. > > > > > > > > We would of course use Phoenix for querying the tables, I'm > > just > > > > wondering if the import of data would be better handled via the > > > > native > > > > HBase API. > > > > > > > > I think I only need to set labels or use the ACL system, > > everything > > > > else should be straight forward. The sparse nature of the data > > > > means > > > > that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if > > Phoenix > > > > would > > > > have a problem with that. > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 16:30 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote: > > > > > >> If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something > > at > > > > the > > > > > HBase > > > > > level. > > > > > As Josh said, it's not yet supported in Phoenix, Though you > > may > > > > try > > > > > using cell-level security of HBase with some Phoenix internal > > API > > > > and > > > > > let us know if it works for you. > > > > > Sharing a sample code if you wanna try. > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > * Do writes using cell based ACLs > > > > > **/ > > > > > Properties props = new Properties(); > > > > > //conf = Hbase conf > > > > > PhoenixConnection conn = (PhoenixConnection) > > > > > QueryUtil.getConnection(props, conf); > > > > > conn.setAutoCommit(false); > > > > > conn.createStatement().executeUpdate(""); > > > > > final Iterator>> iterator = > > > > > pconn.getMutationState().toMutations(false); > > > > > while (iterator.hasNext()) { > > > > > Pair> kvPair = > > iterator.next(); > > > > > List mutationList = kvPair.getSecond(); > > > > > byte[] tableName = kvPair.getFirst(); > > > > > for (Mutation mutation : m
Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records
I ran into this too with other code. Make sure you’re on the same API. HBase 2’s APIs changed heavily so you may have to do some googling for docs to convert the above code into something usable in your version of the HBase API. Also for your original problem, I’m not sure if Apache Ranger supports row-level yet in their HBase plugin but you can certainly add that functionality to make what you’re talking about a LOT easier to maintain. Good luck, Billy Watson On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 23:05 Simon Mottram wrote: > Hi Ankit > > Getting stuck into this, but I am having trouble finding out how to > persist the ACL mutations > > The updates to the mutations aren't being persisted as far as I can > tell. I see in your code you are using htable.batch(). > > I'm struggling to find a way to that object, I can get a PTable from > the connection using the byte[] tablename but PTable doesn't have the > batch() method. > > I'm also unclear on how the htable.batch() method works with > connection.commit(). Is commit required? > > I have a horrible feeling that the mutations require an Hbase > connection rather than Phoenix and I have to go direct to Hbase API > > Best Regards and thanks for the help > > Simon > > > On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 19:06 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote: > > >>would it be best to > > use the HBase API for creating the data. > > yes, you can use HBase API but you need to ensure that Phoenix Data > > type APIs are used to > > convert your column values into bytes and also while creating a > > composite key(if applicable). > > otherwise you would not be able to read data from Phoenix when using > > different data types > > other than varchar or unsigned_bigint. > > > > >> The sparse nature of the data means > > that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix > > would > > have a problem with that. > > Phoenix supports dynamic columns so you should not have a problem > > with that. > > > > Regards, > > Ankit Singhal > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:24 PM Simon Mottram < > > simon.mott...@cucumber.co.nz> wrote: > > > Hi Ankit > > > > > > Thats very useful, many thanks. > > > > > > Before I dive into using Phoenix (which has given me a torrid time > > > over > > > the last few days!), is using Phoenix the best option given that > > > I'm > > > doing some low level access to Cell information, or would it be > > > best to > > > use the HBase API for creating the data. > > > > > > We would of course use Phoenix for querying the tables, I'm just > > > wondering if the import of data would be better handled via the > > > native > > > HBase API. > > > > > > I think I only need to set labels or use the ACL system, everything > > > else should be straight forward. The sparse nature of the data > > > means > > > that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix > > > would > > > have a problem with that. > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 16:30 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote: > > > > >> If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something at > > > the > > > > HBase > > > > level. > > > > As Josh said, it's not yet supported in Phoenix, Though you may > > > try > > > > using cell-level security of HBase with some Phoenix internal API > > > and > > > > let us know if it works for you. > > > > Sharing a sample code if you wanna try. > > > > > > > > /** > > > > * Do writes using cell based ACLs > > > > **/ > > > > Properties props = new Properties(); > > > > //conf = Hbase conf > > > > PhoenixConnection conn = (PhoenixConnection) > > > > QueryUtil.getConnection(props, conf); > > > > conn.setAutoCommit(false); > > > > conn.createStatement().executeUpdate(""); > > > > final Iterator>> iterator = > > > > pconn.getMutationState().toMutations(false); > > > > while (iterator.hasNext()) { > > > > Pair> kvPair = iterator.next(); > > > > List mutationList = kvPair.getSecond(); > > > > byte[] tableName = kvPair.getFirst(); > > > > for (Mutation mutation : mutationList) { > > > > //perms is user->permissions map > > > > mutation.setACL(perms); > > > > } > > > > htable.batch(mutationList); > > > > } > > > > conn.rollback(); > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:19 PM Simon Mottram < > > > > simon.mott...@cucumber.co.nz> wrote: > > > > > Hi Josh > > > > > > > > > > Thought as much, thanks very much for taking the time to > > > respond. > > > > > > > > > > Appreciated > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 11:19 -0400, Josh Elser wrote: > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > > > > Phoenix does not provide any authorization/security layers on > > > top > > > > > of > > > > > > what HBase does (the thread on user@hbase has a suggestion on > > > > > cell > > > > > > ACLs > > > > > > which is good). > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the question you're ultimately asking is: no, the > > > > > TenantID > > > > > > is > > > > > > not an auth
Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records
Hi Ankit Getting stuck into this, but I am having trouble finding out how to persist the ACL mutations The updates to the mutations aren't being persisted as far as I can tell. I see in your code you are using htable.batch(). I'm struggling to find a way to that object, I can get a PTable from the connection using the byte[] tablename but PTable doesn't have the batch() method. I'm also unclear on how the htable.batch() method works with connection.commit(). Is commit required? I have a horrible feeling that the mutations require an Hbase connection rather than Phoenix and I have to go direct to Hbase API Best Regards and thanks for the help Simon On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 19:06 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote: > >>would it be best to > use the HBase API for creating the data. > yes, you can use HBase API but you need to ensure that Phoenix Data > type APIs are used to > convert your column values into bytes and also while creating a > composite key(if applicable). > otherwise you would not be able to read data from Phoenix when using > different data types > other than varchar or unsigned_bigint. > > >> The sparse nature of the data means > that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix > would > have a problem with that. > Phoenix supports dynamic columns so you should not have a problem > with that. > > Regards, > Ankit Singhal > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:24 PM Simon Mottram < > simon.mott...@cucumber.co.nz> wrote: > > Hi Ankit > > > > Thats very useful, many thanks. > > > > Before I dive into using Phoenix (which has given me a torrid time > > over > > the last few days!), is using Phoenix the best option given that > > I'm > > doing some low level access to Cell information, or would it be > > best to > > use the HBase API for creating the data. > > > > We would of course use Phoenix for querying the tables, I'm just > > wondering if the import of data would be better handled via the > > native > > HBase API. > > > > I think I only need to set labels or use the ACL system, everything > > else should be straight forward. The sparse nature of the data > > means > > that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix > > would > > have a problem with that. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Simon > > > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 16:30 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote: > > > >> If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something at > > the > > > HBase > > > level. > > > As Josh said, it's not yet supported in Phoenix, Though you may > > try > > > using cell-level security of HBase with some Phoenix internal API > > and > > > let us know if it works for you. > > > Sharing a sample code if you wanna try. > > > > > > /** > > > * Do writes using cell based ACLs > > > **/ > > > Properties props = new Properties(); > > > //conf = Hbase conf > > > PhoenixConnection conn = (PhoenixConnection) > > > QueryUtil.getConnection(props, conf); > > > conn.setAutoCommit(false); > > > conn.createStatement().executeUpdate(""); > > > final Iterator>> iterator = > > > pconn.getMutationState().toMutations(false); > > > while (iterator.hasNext()) { > > > Pair> kvPair = iterator.next(); > > > List mutationList = kvPair.getSecond(); > > > byte[] tableName = kvPair.getFirst(); > > > for (Mutation mutation : mutationList) { > > > //perms is user->permissions map > > > mutation.setACL(perms); > > > } > > > htable.batch(mutationList); > > > } > > > conn.rollback(); > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:19 PM Simon Mottram < > > > simon.mott...@cucumber.co.nz> wrote: > > > > Hi Josh > > > > > > > > Thought as much, thanks very much for taking the time to > > respond. > > > > > > > > Appreciated > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 11:19 -0400, Josh Elser wrote: > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > > Phoenix does not provide any authorization/security layers on > > top > > > > of > > > > > what HBase does (the thread on user@hbase has a suggestion on > > > > cell > > > > > ACLs > > > > > which is good). > > > > > > > > > > I think the question you're ultimately asking is: no, the > > > > TenantID > > > > > is > > > > > not an authorization layer. In a nut-shell, the TenantID is > > just > > > > an > > > > > extra attribute (column) added to your primary key > > constraint > > > > > auto-magically. If a user doesn't set a TenantID, then they > > see > > > > _all_ > > > > > data. > > > > > > > > > > Unless you have a layer in-between Phoenix and your end-users > > > > that > > > > > add > > > > > extra guarantees/restrictions, a user could set their own > > > > TenantID > > > > > and > > > > > see other folks' data. I don't think this is a good solution > > for > > > > > what > > > > > you're trying to accomplish. > > > > > > > > > > On 9/2/19 8:34 PM, Simon Mottram wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on a project where we have a com
Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records
>>would it be best to use the HBase API for creating the data. yes, you can use HBase API but you need to ensure that Phoenix Data type APIs are used to convert your column values into bytes and also while creating a composite key(if applicable). otherwise you would not be able to read data from Phoenix when using different data types other than varchar or unsigned_bigint. >> The sparse nature of the data means that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix would have a problem with that. Phoenix supports dynamic columns so you should not have a problem with that. Regards, Ankit Singhal On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:24 PM Simon Mottram wrote: > Hi Ankit > > Thats very useful, many thanks. > > Before I dive into using Phoenix (which has given me a torrid time over > the last few days!), is using Phoenix the best option given that I'm > doing some low level access to Cell information, or would it be best to > use the HBase API for creating the data. > > We would of course use Phoenix for querying the tables, I'm just > wondering if the import of data would be better handled via the native > HBase API. > > I think I only need to set labels or use the ACL system, everything > else should be straight forward. The sparse nature of the data means > that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix would > have a problem with that. > > Best Regards > > Simon > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 16:30 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote: > > >> If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something at the > > HBase > > level. > > As Josh said, it's not yet supported in Phoenix, Though you may try > > using cell-level security of HBase with some Phoenix internal API and > > let us know if it works for you. > > Sharing a sample code if you wanna try. > > > > /** > > * Do writes using cell based ACLs > > **/ > > Properties props = new Properties(); > > //conf = Hbase conf > > PhoenixConnection conn = (PhoenixConnection) > > QueryUtil.getConnection(props, conf); > > conn.setAutoCommit(false); > > conn.createStatement().executeUpdate(""); > > final Iterator>> iterator = > > pconn.getMutationState().toMutations(false); > > while (iterator.hasNext()) { > > Pair> kvPair = iterator.next(); > > List mutationList = kvPair.getSecond(); > > byte[] tableName = kvPair.getFirst(); > > for (Mutation mutation : mutationList) { > > //perms is user->permissions map > > mutation.setACL(perms); > > } > > htable.batch(mutationList); > > } > > conn.rollback(); > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:19 PM Simon Mottram < > > simon.mott...@cucumber.co.nz> wrote: > > > Hi Josh > > > > > > Thought as much, thanks very much for taking the time to respond. > > > > > > Appreciated > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 11:19 -0400, Josh Elser wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > Phoenix does not provide any authorization/security layers on top > > > of > > > > what HBase does (the thread on user@hbase has a suggestion on > > > cell > > > > ACLs > > > > which is good). > > > > > > > > I think the question you're ultimately asking is: no, the > > > TenantID > > > > is > > > > not an authorization layer. In a nut-shell, the TenantID is just > > > an > > > > extra attribute (column) added to your primary key constraint > > > > auto-magically. If a user doesn't set a TenantID, then they see > > > _all_ > > > > data. > > > > > > > > Unless you have a layer in-between Phoenix and your end-users > > > that > > > > add > > > > extra guarantees/restrictions, a user could set their own > > > TenantID > > > > and > > > > see other folks' data. I don't think this is a good solution for > > > > what > > > > you're trying to accomplish. > > > > > > > > On 9/2/19 8:34 PM, Simon Mottram wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on a project where we have a combination of very > > > sparse > > > > > data columns with added headaches of multi-tenancy. Hbase > > > looks > > > > > great > > > > > for the back end but I need to check that we can support the > > > > > customer's > > > > > multi-tenancy requirements. > > > > > > > > > > There are 2 that I'm struggling to find a definitive answer > > > for. > > > > > Any > > > > > info most gratefully received > > > > > > > > > > Shared Data > > > > > === > > > > > Each record in the table must be secured but it could be > > > multiple > > > > > tenants for a record. Think 'shared' data. > > > > > > > > > > So for example if you had 3 records > > > > > > > > > > record1, some secret data > > > > > record2, some other secret data > > > > > record3, data? what data. > > > > > > > > > > We need > > > > > user1 to be able to see record1 and record2 > > > > > user2 to be able to see record2 and record3 > > > > > > > > > > From what I see in the mult-tenancy doco, the tenant_id field > > > is a > > > > > VARCHAR, can this be multiple values? > > > > > > > > > > The actual 'multiple tenant' v
Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records
Hi Ankit Thats very useful, many thanks. Before I dive into using Phoenix (which has given me a torrid time over the last few days!), is using Phoenix the best option given that I'm doing some low level access to Cell information, or would it be best to use the HBase API for creating the data. We would of course use Phoenix for querying the tables, I'm just wondering if the import of data would be better handled via the native HBase API. I think I only need to set labels or use the ACL system, everything else should be straight forward. The sparse nature of the data means that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix would have a problem with that. Best Regards Simon On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 16:30 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote: > >> If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something at the > HBase > level. > As Josh said, it's not yet supported in Phoenix, Though you may try > using cell-level security of HBase with some Phoenix internal API and > let us know if it works for you. > Sharing a sample code if you wanna try. > > /** > * Do writes using cell based ACLs > **/ > Properties props = new Properties(); > //conf = Hbase conf > PhoenixConnection conn = (PhoenixConnection) > QueryUtil.getConnection(props, conf); > conn.setAutoCommit(false); > conn.createStatement().executeUpdate(""); > final Iterator>> iterator = > pconn.getMutationState().toMutations(false); > while (iterator.hasNext()) { > Pair> kvPair = iterator.next(); > List mutationList = kvPair.getSecond(); > byte[] tableName = kvPair.getFirst(); > for (Mutation mutation : mutationList) { > //perms is user->permissions map > mutation.setACL(perms); > } > htable.batch(mutationList); > } > conn.rollback(); > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:19 PM Simon Mottram < > simon.mott...@cucumber.co.nz> wrote: > > Hi Josh > > > > Thought as much, thanks very much for taking the time to respond. > > > > Appreciated > > > > Simon > > > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 11:19 -0400, Josh Elser wrote: > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > Phoenix does not provide any authorization/security layers on top > > of > > > what HBase does (the thread on user@hbase has a suggestion on > > cell > > > ACLs > > > which is good). > > > > > > I think the question you're ultimately asking is: no, the > > TenantID > > > is > > > not an authorization layer. In a nut-shell, the TenantID is just > > an > > > extra attribute (column) added to your primary key constraint > > > auto-magically. If a user doesn't set a TenantID, then they see > > _all_ > > > data. > > > > > > Unless you have a layer in-between Phoenix and your end-users > > that > > > add > > > extra guarantees/restrictions, a user could set their own > > TenantID > > > and > > > see other folks' data. I don't think this is a good solution for > > > what > > > you're trying to accomplish. > > > > > > On 9/2/19 8:34 PM, Simon Mottram wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > I'm working on a project where we have a combination of very > > sparse > > > > data columns with added headaches of multi-tenancy. Hbase > > looks > > > > great > > > > for the back end but I need to check that we can support the > > > > customer's > > > > multi-tenancy requirements. > > > > > > > > There are 2 that I'm struggling to find a definitive answer > > for. > > > > Any > > > > info most gratefully received > > > > > > > > Shared Data > > > > === > > > > Each record in the table must be secured but it could be > > multiple > > > > tenants for a record. Think 'shared' data. > > > > > > > > So for example if you had 3 records > > > > > > > > record1, some secret data > > > > record2, some other secret data > > > > record3, data? what data. > > > > > > > > We need > > > > user1 to be able to see record1 and record2 > > > > user2 to be able to see record2 and record3 > > > > > > > > From what I see in the mult-tenancy doco, the tenant_id field > > is a > > > > VARCHAR, can this be multiple values? > > > > > > > > The actual 'multiple tenant' value would be set at creation and > > > > very > > > > rarely (if ever) changed, but I couldn't guarantee immutability > > > > > > > > > > > > Enforced Security > > > > = > > > > Can you prevent access without TenantId? Otherwise if someone > > just > > > > edits the connection info they can sidestep all the multi- > > tenancy > > > > features. Our users include scientific types who will want to > > > > connect > > > > directly using JDBC/Python/Other so we need to be sure to lock > > this > > > > data down. > > > > > > > > Of course they want 'admin' types who CAN see all =) Whether > > there > > > > is a > > > > special connection that allows non-tenanted connections or have > > a > > > > multi-tenant key that always contains a master tenantid (yuck) > > > > > > > > If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something at > > the > > > > HBase >
Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records
>> If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something at the HBase level. As Josh said, it's not yet supported in Phoenix, Though you may try using cell-level security of HBase with some Phoenix internal API and let us know if it works for you. Sharing a sample code if you wanna try. /** * Do writes using cell based ACLs **/ Properties props = new Properties(); //conf = Hbase conf PhoenixConnection conn = (PhoenixConnection) QueryUtil.getConnection(props, conf); conn.setAutoCommit(false); conn.createStatement().executeUpdate(""); final Iterator>> iterator = pconn.getMutationState().toMutations(false); while (iterator.hasNext()) { Pair> kvPair = iterator.next(); List mutationList = kvPair.getSecond(); byte[] tableName = kvPair.getFirst(); for (Mutation mutation : mutationList) { //perms is user->permissions map mutation.setACL(perms); } htable.batch(mutationList); } conn.rollback(); On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:19 PM Simon Mottram wrote: > Hi Josh > > Thought as much, thanks very much for taking the time to respond. > > Appreciated > > Simon > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 11:19 -0400, Josh Elser wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > Phoenix does not provide any authorization/security layers on top of > > what HBase does (the thread on user@hbase has a suggestion on cell > > ACLs > > which is good). > > > > I think the question you're ultimately asking is: no, the TenantID > > is > > not an authorization layer. In a nut-shell, the TenantID is just an > > extra attribute (column) added to your primary key constraint > > auto-magically. If a user doesn't set a TenantID, then they see _all_ > > data. > > > > Unless you have a layer in-between Phoenix and your end-users that > > add > > extra guarantees/restrictions, a user could set their own TenantID > > and > > see other folks' data. I don't think this is a good solution for > > what > > you're trying to accomplish. > > > > On 9/2/19 8:34 PM, Simon Mottram wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > I'm working on a project where we have a combination of very sparse > > > data columns with added headaches of multi-tenancy. Hbase looks > > > great > > > for the back end but I need to check that we can support the > > > customer's > > > multi-tenancy requirements. > > > > > > There are 2 that I'm struggling to find a definitive answer for. > > > Any > > > info most gratefully received > > > > > > Shared Data > > > === > > > Each record in the table must be secured but it could be multiple > > > tenants for a record. Think 'shared' data. > > > > > > So for example if you had 3 records > > > > > > record1, some secret data > > > record2, some other secret data > > > record3, data? what data. > > > > > > We need > > > user1 to be able to see record1 and record2 > > > user2 to be able to see record2 and record3 > > > > > > From what I see in the mult-tenancy doco, the tenant_id field is a > > > VARCHAR, can this be multiple values? > > > > > > The actual 'multiple tenant' value would be set at creation and > > > very > > > rarely (if ever) changed, but I couldn't guarantee immutability > > > > > > > > > Enforced Security > > > = > > > Can you prevent access without TenantId? Otherwise if someone just > > > edits the connection info they can sidestep all the multi-tenancy > > > features. Our users include scientific types who will want to > > > connect > > > directly using JDBC/Python/Other so we need to be sure to lock this > > > data down. > > > > > > Of course they want 'admin' types who CAN see all =) Whether there > > > is a > > > special connection that allows non-tenanted connections or have a > > > multi-tenant key that always contains a master tenantid (yuck) > > > > > > If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something at the > > > HBase > > > level. > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > > > Simon > > > >
Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records
Hi Josh Thought as much, thanks very much for taking the time to respond. Appreciated Simon On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 11:19 -0400, Josh Elser wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Phoenix does not provide any authorization/security layers on top of > what HBase does (the thread on user@hbase has a suggestion on cell > ACLs > which is good). > > I think the question you're ultimately asking is: no, the TenantID > is > not an authorization layer. In a nut-shell, the TenantID is just an > extra attribute (column) added to your primary key constraint > auto-magically. If a user doesn't set a TenantID, then they see _all_ > data. > > Unless you have a layer in-between Phoenix and your end-users that > add > extra guarantees/restrictions, a user could set their own TenantID > and > see other folks' data. I don't think this is a good solution for > what > you're trying to accomplish. > > On 9/2/19 8:34 PM, Simon Mottram wrote: > > Hi > > > > I'm working on a project where we have a combination of very sparse > > data columns with added headaches of multi-tenancy. Hbase looks > > great > > for the back end but I need to check that we can support the > > customer's > > multi-tenancy requirements. > > > > There are 2 that I'm struggling to find a definitive answer for. > > Any > > info most gratefully received > > > > Shared Data > > === > > Each record in the table must be secured but it could be multiple > > tenants for a record. Think 'shared' data. > > > > So for example if you had 3 records > > > > record1, some secret data > > record2, some other secret data > > record3, data? what data. > > > > We need > > user1 to be able to see record1 and record2 > > user2 to be able to see record2 and record3 > > > > From what I see in the mult-tenancy doco, the tenant_id field is a > > VARCHAR, can this be multiple values? > > > > The actual 'multiple tenant' value would be set at creation and > > very > > rarely (if ever) changed, but I couldn't guarantee immutability > > > > > > Enforced Security > > = > > Can you prevent access without TenantId? Otherwise if someone just > > edits the connection info they can sidestep all the multi-tenancy > > features. Our users include scientific types who will want to > > connect > > directly using JDBC/Python/Other so we need to be sure to lock this > > data down. > > > > Of course they want 'admin' types who CAN see all =) Whether there > > is a > > special connection that allows non-tenanted connections or have a > > multi-tenant key that always contains a master tenantid (yuck) > > > > If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something at the > > HBase > > level. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Simon > >
Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records
Hi Simon, Phoenix does not provide any authorization/security layers on top of what HBase does (the thread on user@hbase has a suggestion on cell ACLs which is good). I think the question you're ultimately asking is: no, the TenantID is not an authorization layer. In a nut-shell, the TenantID is just an extra attribute (column) added to your primary key constraint auto-magically. If a user doesn't set a TenantID, then they see _all_ data. Unless you have a layer in-between Phoenix and your end-users that add extra guarantees/restrictions, a user could set their own TenantID and see other folks' data. I don't think this is a good solution for what you're trying to accomplish. On 9/2/19 8:34 PM, Simon Mottram wrote: Hi I'm working on a project where we have a combination of very sparse data columns with added headaches of multi-tenancy. Hbase looks great for the back end but I need to check that we can support the customer's multi-tenancy requirements. There are 2 that I'm struggling to find a definitive answer for. Any info most gratefully received Shared Data === Each record in the table must be secured but it could be multiple tenants for a record. Think 'shared' data. So for example if you had 3 records record1, some secret data record2, some other secret data record3, data? what data. We need user1 to be able to see record1 and record2 user2 to be able to see record2 and record3 From what I see in the mult-tenancy doco, the tenant_id field is a VARCHAR, can this be multiple values? The actual 'multiple tenant' value would be set at creation and very rarely (if ever) changed, but I couldn't guarantee immutability Enforced Security = Can you prevent access without TenantId? Otherwise if someone just edits the connection info they can sidestep all the multi-tenancy features. Our users include scientific types who will want to connect directly using JDBC/Python/Other so we need to be sure to lock this data down. Of course they want 'admin' types who CAN see all =) Whether there is a special connection that allows non-tenanted connections or have a multi-tenant key that always contains a master tenantid (yuck) If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something at the HBase level. Best Regards Simon