mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benno Evers <bev...@mesosphere.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 71729: Added authorization handling for reservations with `source`.
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2019 14:20:28 GMT


> On Nov. 6, 2019, 4:11 p.m., Benno Evers wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp
> > Lines 3810 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/71729/diff/1/?file=2171587#file2171587line3810>
> >
> >     It doesn't seem ideal to have recursively nested calls to `collectauthorizations()`,
even if the logic is sound it seems hard to reason about.
> >     
> >     Would it be possible to eliminate the branching by setting `source` to be `resources.popReservation()`
if `source` is empty?
> 
> Benjamin Bannier wrote:
>     > Would it be possible to eliminate the branching by setting source to be resources.popReservation()
if source is empty?
>     
>     This would only work if we know that all resources passed to `RESERVE` are indeed
reserved. Unfortunately that is not the case in the current implementation (e.g., `cpus(A):1;mem:256`
would reserve only `cpus`). We need to keep support for that behavior as it is part of the
APII.
>     
>     In the patch I put up we go from the narrower extended API (e.g., all resources passed
to `RESERVE` must have identical reservations) to the wider existing API so we are good. Going
from wider to narrower doesn't work, though.
>     
>     What I could do for the sake of readibility would be to introduce a dedicated function
for the legacy behavior to avoid the self-recursion. I am not sure that would help (and might
it even make harder to follow the code).
>     
>     WDYT?

Intuitively introducing a dedicated function sounds cleaner to me, but the self-recursion
should be fine as well if there's no easy way to avoid it. Maybe it would be good to add some
of the reasoning above to the comment, though.


- Benno


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/71729/#review218545
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 7, 2019, 11 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/71729/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 7, 2019, 11 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Benno Evers.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-9991
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-9991
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This patch adds authorization handling for `RESERVE` operations
> containing `source` fields. In order to stay backwards-compatible we add
> a dedicated authorization branch for such operations which under the
> hood translates each removed reservation to an `UNRESERVE` operation and
> every added reservation as a `RESERVE` operation where we fall back to
> existing authorization code for authorization.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.cpp e7609f361b58f9b1f0d2d5eb6037f98edcb41a56 
>   src/tests/master_authorization_tests.cpp 06471aa7779d399f4474ed40db3fbcc60b8298b2 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/71729/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Bannier
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message