Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add integration test for crypto service rekeys #758

Open
PircDef opened this issue Nov 8, 2018 · 6 comments
Open

Add integration test for crypto service rekeys #758

PircDef opened this issue Nov 8, 2018 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@PircDef
Copy link
Member

PircDef commented Nov 8, 2018

An integration test exercising the use of encrypted and unencrypted data, using multiple keys, and rekeying should be implemented. The order of events to get this in one test should look something like:

  1. Start Accumulo without encryption
  2. Create a table
  3. Write to the table
  4. Read the data
  5. Stop Accumulo (in Uno, this would be 'uno stop Accumulo --no-deps')
  6. Enable encryption and specify a key file
  7. Restart Accumulo
  8. Write to the existing table
  9. Read the data (which will now be a mixture of encrypted and unencrypted data)
  10. Stop Accumulo
  11. Specify a new key file (leaving the old one)
  12. Start Accumulo
  13. Write to the existing table
  14. Read the data (which should now be a mixture of encrypted data from two keys and unencrypted data)
  15. Run a compaction
  16. Check the RFile tails to make sure only the 2nd key is used and that all RFiles are encrypted

I suspect the Accumulo restarts are necessary to reset the configurations, but there might be a cleaner way to do that.

@milleruntime
Copy link
Contributor

Ping @PircDef... you still interested in creating this Test?

@ctubbsii ctubbsii removed the v2.0.0 label Jun 8, 2019
@DomGarguilo
Copy link
Member

Is it okay if I start looking into this @milleruntime? It doesn't appear the other assignee has been active for a while.

@milleruntime
Copy link
Contributor

Is it okay if I start looking into this @milleruntime? It doesn't appear the other assignee has been active for a while.

Yeah go for it! I haven't look at this in a while.

@PircDef
Copy link
Member Author

PircDef commented Oct 28, 2021

Is it okay if I start looking into this @milleruntime? It doesn't appear the other assignee has been active for a while.

If you want to tag me when you post a PR, I'll take a look at it, too.

@ctubbsii
Copy link
Member

This may depend on #2197 being finalized.

@DomGarguilo
Copy link
Member

This may depend on #2197 being finalized.

Yea, it looks like it might. I'll work on something else until this is ready.

@DomGarguilo DomGarguilo removed their assignment Apr 15, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants
@ctubbsii @milleruntime @PircDef @DomGarguilo and others