Thanks, I am watching that issue now.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > I tried that and stumbled into HBASE-10621 > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Alex Nastetsky <anastet...@spryinc.com > >wrote: > > > Thanks Ted. > > > > Can you use user X to grant hrt_1 permission to create tables just in the > > 'ted' namespace (but not in the global namespace)? > > > > I want a user to be able to create their own tables, but not drop the > > tables of other users. If I can't have that, then I would settle for not > > being able to drop the tables in other namespaces. > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I created a table 'ted:t1' using user X in a secure cluster. > > > > > > I then logged in as user hrt_1 and did the following: > > > > > > hbase(main):007:0> user_permission 'ted:t1' > > > User > > > Table,Family,Qualifier:Permission > > > > > > ERROR: org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.AccessDeniedException: > > Insufficient > > > permissions (user=hr...@h.net, scope=ted:t1, family=, action=ADMIN) > > > at > > > > > > > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.AccessController.requirePermission(AccessController.java:387) > > > at > > > > > > > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.AccessController.getUserPermissions(AccessController.java:1613) > > > > > > hbase(main):002:0> disable 'ted:t1' > > > > > > ERROR: org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.AccessDeniedException: > > Insufficient > > > permissions (user=hr...@horton.ygridcore.net, scope=ted:t1, family=, > > > action=CREATE) > > > > > > So your use case is covered. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Alex Nastetsky < > anastet...@spryinc.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > I haven't looked at the patch, just the ticket description. Here is > an > > > > excerpt: > > > > > > > > Lets see an example on how privileges work with namespaces. > > > > > User "Mike" request for a namespace named "hbase_perf" with the > hbase > > > > > admin. > > > > > whoami: hbase > > > > > hbase shell >> namespace_create 'hbase_perf' > > > > > hbase shell >> grant 'mike', 'W', '@hbase_perf' > > > > > Mike creates two tables "table20" and "table50" in the above > > workspace. > > > > > whoami: mike > > > > > hbase shell >> create 'hbase_perf.table20', 'family1' > > > > > hbase shell >> create 'hbase_perf.table50', 'family1' > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying the ability to grant users permission to create tables > > in > > > a > > > > namespace is not part of the patch? > > > > > > > > If it's not, then it does not cover my scenario, as you said. Which > > would > > > > mean that the hope is for it to be implemented in HBASE-9206, which > > > > apparently hasn't been touched in 5 months. > > > > > > > > I can't imagine the scenario for wanting to prevent other users from > > > > dropping your table is that uncommon. What's the point of controlling > > who > > > > can Write to your table if anyone can just drop it? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I went over the patch for HBASE-8409 one more time. > > > > > I don't see a test case covering your scenario. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Alex Nastetsky < > > > anastet...@spryinc.com > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Does that indicate to you an abandoned ticket? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that HBASE-8409 alone would satisfy my needs because it > > > > prevents > > > > > > other tenants from dropping and altering my tables (the W > > > permission). > > > > I > > > > > > can live with users with dropping and altering tables of other > > users > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > same namespace. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have another suggested approach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was looking at HBASE-9206 : the last comment was 5 months > ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Alex Nastetsky < > > > > > anastet...@spryinc.com > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for all that detail. Re: updating documentation, it > > looks > > > > like > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > is a ticket for that: > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6192 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My specific use case is to support secure multi-tenancy. It > > looks > > > > > like > > > > > > > > namespaces is the way to go, and security for them was added > in > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8409 with > > additional > > > > > > > security > > > > > > > > being added in > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9206. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Gary Helmling < > > > > ghelml...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like how the CREATE permission is applied changed > > with > > > > > > > > HBASE-6188, > > > > > > > > > which removed the concept of a table owner. Prior to > > > HBASE-6188, > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > disable/enable table permission checks required either: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * ADMIN permission > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > * the user is the table owner AND has the CREATE permission > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the original intent here was that if you created > a > > > > table, > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > should be able to disable and modify it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After HBASE-6188, the check in enable/disable table is > simply > > > for > > > > > > > either > > > > > > > > > ADMIN or CREATE permission. This seems to be the best > > > compromise > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > attempting to maintain some of the previous semantics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew Purtell commented to this in HBASE-6188: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <quote> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE -(DDL) CreateTable, AddColumn, DeleteColumn, > > > DeleteTable, > > > > > > > > > ModifyColumn, ModifyTable, DisableTable, EnableTable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ADMIN - All of the above plus Flush, Split, Compact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not useful to give add/delete/modify schema privileges > > > > without > > > > > > > > > enable/disable to have them take effect. So either we do > the > > > > above > > > > > or > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > get rid of CREATE. I think the above distinction is still > > > useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edit: I don't like that non-ADMIN can do enable/disable > > table, > > > > > > because > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > can really affect the cluster if the table is large. > However > > I > > > > > think > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > balance it would be more confusing than useful to remove > > > > > EnableTable > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > DisableTable from the set of operations CREATE permission > > > allows > > > > > > until > > > > > > > > > online schema update-in-place without disable is always > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > </quote> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this point, it may be useful to discuss if we're at the > > > point > > > > > yet > > > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > > online schema updates can be reliably done without a table > > > > disable. > > > > > > In > > > > > > > > > this case, it might make sense to drop disable/enable table > > > from > > > > > > CREATE > > > > > > > > > permission. Though we now have backwards compatibility to > > > > consider > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this could be better reflected in the security > > > documentation, > > > > > > please > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > open a JIRA describing how we can make it clearer. And if > > you > > > > feel > > > > > > up > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > it, a patch or updated text would be even better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Alex Nastetsky < > > > > > > > anastet...@spryinc.com > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't really understand how HBase permission is > expected > > to > > > > > work > > > > > > > > then. > > > > > > > > > A > > > > > > > > > > user needs the Create permission in order to be able to > > > create > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > own > > > > > > > > > > tables. But that permission also allows them to "drop" > and > > > > > "alter" > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > tables created by others. Even if those operations are > set > > up > > > > to > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > work > > > > > > > > > > when a table is disabled, the ability to disable a table > is > > > > also > > > > > > > given > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > the Create permission. What am I missing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Alex Nastetsky < > > > > > > > > anastet...@spryinc.com > > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like either permission is sufficient. Either > way, > > > the > > > > > > > > > > documentation > > > > > > > > > > > could be improved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ted Yu < > > > yuzhih...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Here is related code from AccessController: > > > > > > > > > > >> {code} > > > > > > > > > > >> public void > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > preDisableTable(ObserverContext<MasterCoprocessorEnvironment> > > > > > > > > > > >> c, byte[] tableName) > > > > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > > > > > >> requirePermission("disableTable", tableName, null, > > > null, > > > > > > > > > > Action.ADMIN, > > > > > > > > > > >> Action.CREATE); > > > > > > > > > > >> {code} > > > > > > > > > > >> requirePermission() iterates through the above > > permissions > > > > and > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > >> return > > > > > > > > > > >> error for the second permission (CREATE) if validation > > > > fails. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Cheers > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Alex Nastetsky < > > > > > > > > > > anastet...@spryinc.com > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > According to > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://hbase.apache.org/book/hbase.accesscontrol.configuration.html#d2566e5780 > > > > > > > > > > >> > , > > > > > > > > > > >> > the Enable/Disable operation is controlled by the > > Admin > > > > > > > > permission. > > > > > > > > > > >> > However, it seems to be controlled instead by the > > Create > > > > > > > > permission. > > > > > > > > > > Is > > > > > > > > > > >> > this a bug or a typo in the documentation? > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > hbase(main):002:0> disable 'foo' > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > ERROR: > > > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.AccessDeniedException: > > > > > > > > > > >> Insufficient > > > > > > > > > > >> > permissions (user=anastet...@spry.com, scope=foo, > > > > family=, > > > > > > > > > > >> action=CREATE) > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks in advance, > > > > > > > > > > >> > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
