HBASE-29144 Client request fails for KERBEROS with RpcConnectionRegistry #7580
+122
−14
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
|
As I said on the jira issue, we need to find out why we need to use a singleton instance... This PR just reverts the code change in HBASE-25051... |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Caused by: org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.RetriesExhaustedException: Failed contacting masters after 1 attempts. Exceptions: java.io.IOException: Call to address=192.168.35.34:57912 failed on local exception: java.io.IOException: Authentication provider class org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.provider.SimpleSaslClientAuthenticationProvider returned a null SaslClient
…Jain" This reverts commit 8b46519ca6dbc2a05a5b083e182383a070763daa.
junegunn
force-pushed
the
HBASE-29144
branch
from
60e1c16 to
e057371
Compare
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Member
Author
|
@Apache9 Hi, thanks for taking a look.
I don't think this accurately describes the patch. Could you please take another look? This change does not revert what was done in HBASE-25051. Instead, it only changes how we instruct the RPC connection for obtaining the cluster ID to not use SASL. Previously, we used to achieve that by passing a modified Configuration object. With this patch, we explicitly choose not to use SASL when a valid cluster ID is not provided as a parameter. To my understanding, this only happens when obtaining the cluster ID. After all, this change doesn't break any existing tests. That said, I understand that you may want to take a different approach. However, I still believe it's preferable to avoid mutating the configuration object, as doing so can lead to unintended side effects elsewhere in the codebase. |
Contributor
|
We do not want any authentications when fetching cluster id, so we create a new configuration instance and use it for the rpc connnection, this is a valid solution and should not have any side effect, as I do not modify the existing configuration object right? If this is not a valid usage, then how do our users try connecting to different hbase clusters in a single client process, where one cluster enables sasl, the other does not? As I said on the jira issue, the problem here is we should not have a singleton SaslProviders, as its intialization needs a Configuration object, but we allow our users to initialize different rpc connections with different Configurations right? This is what we need to fix here, I think. Thanks. |
Member
Author
You make a valid point. I initially thought that not modifying the original Configuration would free us from having to worry about how it's used downstream. But on second thought, that would only mask fundamental bugs like this, which can't really be considered a good thing. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request is for exploring possible fixes for HBASE-29144.
However, I'm concerned about mutating a configuration object that could be reused in unintended ways later (e.g., being cached by a singleton, as in this case). So I also explored an alternative approach.
noAuthConf. And as expected, the test fails again.noAuthConf.