Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo, mail # dev - ACCUMULO-958 - Pluggable encryption in walogs


Copy link to this message
-
Re: ACCUMULO-958 - Pluggable encryption in walogs
Adam Fuchs 2013-01-30, 15:40
Let me attempt to make another argument for why the 958 patch should be
included in 1.5.0. What this patch represents is not an encryption solution
for WAL, but an experimental extension point that will be used for building
an encryption solution as a pluggable module. We need to judge its merit
based on whether it is a successful experimental extension point or not.
There are three main reasons for including the patch in 1.5.0:
1. Test the performance impact of the null cipher solution (default
configuration) in all the performance tests we will be running for the
1.5.0 release. If it causes problems there then we can roll it back.
2. Enable the use of this extension after 1.5 is released. External
experiments have dependencies on this extension point. Without the
extension point we will have to test with unreleased versions of Accumulo,
which would be less than ideal.
3. It is not harmful and somebody wants it. The reason for wanting this
code in is well documented, so you need a very strong reason to throw it
out. Otherwise you will encourage forking of the project (which would be
bad).

Adam
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Some comments about the comments in ACCUMULO-958:
>
> Josh writes:
>
> "We still have the ability to review this even after the feature freeze
> happens, it's just frustrating from my point of view in generating the best
> 1.5.0 candidate possible (we tend to go through x.y.0 releases pretty darn
> quick)."
>
> John writes:
>
> "Yes, but we get stuck on x.y.* for a year or so, so it does become a race
> to get all the features you want to see in the next year."
>
> As Accumulo matures, we will need to start thinking a little more flexibly
> about what goes into minor releases.  We have implemented new (small)
> features in minor releases before.
>
> I would have no problem including ACCUMULO-958 into 1.5.1 after a test
> phase, and after some basic experience with the feature.  However I'm very
> uncomfortable including this in 1.5.0 because there is not a single test,
> and no real implementation behind the factory that anyone would use In Real
> Life.  Is this an appropriate API?  I have no idea.  Comments in the code
> about the stability of the interface basically admit that the author isn't
> completely comfortable with it, either.
>
> Let's not rush it, and when it is done right, I'm all for putting it into
> the next release.  For now, I would hold back incorporating these changes
> until they are more fully implemented. After we branch 1.5, commit this to
> trunk, and back-port it to the 1.5 branch when experience and tests show it
> is ready to be released.
>
> -Eric
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > It's been a few days and I haven't seen much chatter at all on
> > ACCUMULO-958 [1] since the patch was applied. There are a couple of
> > concerns I have that I definitely want to see addressed before a 1.5.0
> > release.
> >
> > - It worries me that the provided patch is fail-open (when we can't load
> > the configured encryption strategies/modules, we don't decrypt anything.
> I
> > think for a security-minded database, we should probably be defaulting to
> > fail-close; but, that brings up an issue, what happens when we can't
> > encrypt a WAL? Do minor compactions fail gracefully? What does Accumulo
> do?
> >
> > - John said he had been reviewing the patch before he applied it; it
> > bothers me that there was a version of this patch that had been reviewed
> > privately for some amount of time when we had already pushed back the
> > feature freeze date by a week waiting for features that weren't done.
> >
> > - The author noted himself with the deprecation of the CryptoModule
> > interface that "we anticipate changing [this] in non-backwards compatible
> > ways as we explore requirements for encryption in Accumulo...". This
> tells
> > me that implementation of WAL encryption overall hasn't been properly