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

[Change Request] Refactor task creation code server-side for master algorithm #742

Closed
lsago opened this issue Jul 3, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels
change Internal change

Comments

@lsago
Copy link
Contributor

lsago commented Jul 3, 2023

Hi @bartvanb, following up on the conversation from several days ago about centralized aggregator where you asked me to create this issue.

By reading the code here, it looked like it would be impossible for a user to run the master algorithm on a node that is not their organization's node. But on further inspection it seems like that 'master' attribute is never sent on the POST at that level. It is sent I believe, but inside the serialized organizations.input, which might or might not be encrypted. So, I guess at the moment the server can't control on which node the master algorithm is allowed to run.

Perhaps it would be nice if node administrators had granular control over which part of an algorithm is allowed to run on their nodes (master, partial or both). But at the moment I don't believe this feature exists, and as you said, the expected behavior now is that users should be able to arbitrarily choose where the master runs (IIRC). So, maybe it's best if we remove this check for 'master' on the server? Provided I haven't missed anything, which is not unlikely :)

@bartvanb
Copy link
Member

bartvanb commented Jul 4, 2023

Indeed it is common to define master=True/False within the input (see e.g. here). So I think your assessment is correct: the first code fragment which you refer to has no function and should be removed. I'll create a PR for that.

@bartvanb
Copy link
Member

bartvanb commented Jul 4, 2023

Regarding your point that it would be nice for node admins to control which algorithm parts may run on their node: agree! We aim to tackle that in the collaboration 'policies', but you may already create an issue for this specifically so that we keep it in mind

@lsago
Copy link
Contributor Author

lsago commented Jul 7, 2023

Thank you!

The node-admin control over which part of the algorithms is allowed to run was more of an afterthought to this issue, but sounds good, will create an issue to keep it in mind. In the meantime, is there already some code/documentation for the new 'collaboration policies' that I could check out?

@bartvanb
Copy link
Member

bartvanb commented Jul 7, 2023

No, there is not really any work done on the collaboration policies. At present, it is just an idea that we want to implement in the future, but there is no plan yet of how to achieve it exactly.

@frankcorneliusmartin frankcorneliusmartin added change Internal change and removed New labels Jul 18, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
change Internal change
Projects
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants