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

Remove fixed server type check in kerberos #4758

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 19, 2019

Conversation

zymap
Copy link
Member

@zymap zymap commented Jul 18, 2019

Motivation

Currently, In Pulsar Kerberos authentication, The server type part of pulsar node principle is hard coded as "broker" and "proxy". The expected principle for pulsar nodes would be like "broker/brokera.host.name@your.com" or "proxy/proxyb.host.name@your.com".

But some times, user may want to re-use existing principle like "u-service/host.name@some.com", to test and play around, then "u-service" will not match service type of "broker" or "proxy", and the authentication will be rejected.
This change is to remove the check of "broker" or "proxy" service type check.

Modifaction

Remove the check of "broker" or "proxy" service type check.

@zymap zymap closed this Jul 18, 2019
@zymap zymap reopened this Jul 18, 2019
@zymap zymap closed this Jul 18, 2019
@zymap zymap reopened this Jul 18, 2019
@zymap zymap closed this Jul 18, 2019
@zymap zymap reopened this Jul 18, 2019
@zymap
Copy link
Member Author

zymap commented Jul 18, 2019

run cpp tests

@zymap
Copy link
Member Author

zymap commented Jul 18, 2019

run java8 tests

4 similar comments
@zymap
Copy link
Member Author

zymap commented Jul 18, 2019

run java8 tests

@zymap
Copy link
Member Author

zymap commented Jul 18, 2019

run java8 tests

@zymap
Copy link
Member Author

zymap commented Jul 18, 2019

run java8 tests

@zymap
Copy link
Member Author

zymap commented Jul 18, 2019

run java8 tests

@jiazhai jiazhai modified the milestones: 2.5.0, 2.4.1 Jul 18, 2019
@sijie
Copy link
Member

sijie commented Jul 18, 2019

@jiazhai @zymap can you add more descriptions about why this change is needed? "it needs more types when deploying in production" doesn't explain anything though.

@zymap
Copy link
Member Author

zymap commented Jul 19, 2019

@sijie Sure

@jiazhai jiazhai self-requested a review July 19, 2019 00:46
@jiazhai jiazhai merged commit f5b20cd into apache:master Jul 19, 2019
@jiazhai jiazhai changed the title Fix server type in kerberos Remove fixed server type check in kerberos Jul 19, 2019
easyfan pushed a commit to easyfan/pulsar that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2019
## Motivation 

Currently, In Pulsar Kerberos authentication, The server type part of pulsar node principle is hard coded as "broker" and "proxy". The expected principle for pulsar nodes would be like "broker/brokera.host.name@your.com" or "proxy/proxyb.host.name@your.com". 

But some times, user may want to re-use existing principle like "u-service/host.name@some.com", to test and play around, then "u-service" will not match service type of "broker" or "proxy", and the authentication will be rejected.
This change is to remove the check of "broker" or "proxy" service type check.

## Modifaction

Remove the check of "broker" or "proxy" service type check.
jiazhai pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 28, 2019
## Motivation

Currently, In Pulsar Kerberos authentication, The server type part of pulsar node principle is hard coded as "broker" and "proxy". The expected principle for pulsar nodes would be like "broker/brokera.host.name@your.com" or "proxy/proxyb.host.name@your.com".

But some times, user may want to re-use existing principle like "u-service/host.name@some.com", to test and play around, then "u-service" will not match service type of "broker" or "proxy", and the authentication will be rejected.
This change is to remove the check of "broker" or "proxy" service type check.

## Modifaction

Remove the check of "broker" or "proxy" service type check.
(cherry picked from commit f5b20cd)
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants