[JBoss JIRA] (WFCORE-1220) Try closing the channel if java.lang.Error prevents sending error responses to the client
by Brian Stansberry (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1220?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Brian Stansberry updated WFCORE-1220:
-------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 3.0.0.Alpha7
(was: 3.0.0.Alpha6)
> Try closing the channel if java.lang.Error prevents sending error responses to the client
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFCORE-1220
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1220
> Project: WildFly Core
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Domain Management
> Reporter: Brian Stansberry
> Assignee: Brian Stansberry
> Fix For: 3.0.0.Alpha7
>
>
> Beyond the basic work on WFCORE-1134, look into further reaction when Errors occur and the server or HC cannot even send an error response to the caller. If we get to this point, the task has already failed to handle a problem and now we can't notify the remote side either. Most likely this is an OOME situation, although any Error here means a major issue.
> Options:
> 1) Try and close the channel to disconnect this process from the remote end so it doesn't disrupt the remote end. If this is an intra-HC or HC-server connection a successful close will remove this process from normal domain control. If this is a server the HC still has some control over the server via the ProcessController, e.g. to handle a 'kill' or 'destroy' management op. If this is a slave HC, the slave is disconnected from the domain. Either a server or a slave HC may try to reconnect, although it's likely better if that fails and the user just restarts the process.
> If the remote side is an end user client (e.g. CLI) then a successful close will be noticed by the client. The user can reconnect or take action to terminate this process.
> 2) Commit suicide via SystemExiter.exit. But I'm not certain complete termination of the process is how we want to deal with problems with management requests. Probably some sort of configurable policy would be better.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
9 years, 3 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFCORE-1351) FilePermission for XNIO and Marshalling modules are required for Remoting to run with security manager
by Brian Stansberry (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1351?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Brian Stansberry updated WFCORE-1351:
-------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 3.0.0.Alpha7
(was: 3.0.0.Alpha6)
> FilePermission for XNIO and Marshalling modules are required for Remoting to run with security manager
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFCORE-1351
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1351
> Project: WildFly Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Remoting, Security
> Reporter: Ondrej Kotek
> Assignee: David Lloyd
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 3.0.0.Alpha7
>
>
> # Running _NestedRemoteContextTestCase_ (from WildFly _testsuite/integration/basic_) with security manager, like
> {noformat}
> ./integration-tests.sh -Dts.basic -Dts.noSmoke -Dtest=NestedRemoteContextTestCase -Dsecurity.manager
> {noformat}
> results in exception:
> {noformat}
> java.io.IOException: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: XNIO001001: No XNIO provider found
> {noformat}
> To make it work, permissions like following need to be added to _permissions.xml_ of _ejb.ear_:
> {noformat}
> new FilePermission("/home/okotek/git/wildfly/dist/target/wildfly-10.0.0.CR5-SNAPSHOT/modules/system/layers/base/org/jboss/xnio/nio/main/*", "read"),
> new FilePermission("/home/okotek/git/wildfly/dist/target/wildfly-10.0.0.CR5-SNAPSHOT/modules/system/layers/base/org/jboss/marshalling/river/main/*", "read"),
> new RemotingPermission("createEndpoint"),
> new RuntimePermission("createXnioWorker"),
> new RemotingPermission("addConnectionProvider"),
> new RuntimePermission("modifyThread"),
> new RuntimePermission("accessDeclaredMembers"),
> new ReflectPermission("suppressAccessChecks")
> {noformat}
> which is very confusing.
> Why do I need add seemingly unrelated permissions, like _FilePermission_ for XNIO and marshalling or _RuntimePermission_ for createXnioWorker? Such behavior should be fixed or properly documented.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
9 years, 3 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFCORE-1515) Improve PersistentResourceDefinition to make it easier to register attribute write handlers
by Brian Stansberry (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Brian Stansberry updated WFCORE-1515:
-------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 3.0.0.Alpha7
(was: 3.0.0.Alpha6)
> Improve PersistentResourceDefinition to make it easier to register attribute write handlers
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFCORE-1515
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1515
> Project: WildFly Core
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Components: Domain Management
> Reporter: Tomaz Cerar
> Assignee: Tomaz Cerar
> Fix For: 3.0.0.Alpha7
>
>
> Currently if you want to take register custom write handler you need to override whole registerAttributes methods and do it yourself all the way.
> We could add PersistentResourceDefinition.getAttributeHandlers() method that returns
> a Map<String, OperationStepHandler>.
> And then registerAttributes uses the map instead of hardcoding ReloadRequiredWriteAttributeHandler. Default impl just fills the map values with
> ReloadRequiredWriteAttributeHandler.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
9 years, 3 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFCORE-1598) Conversion of Elytron SecurityIdentity to Subject for communication with older hosts.
by Brian Stansberry (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1598?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Brian Stansberry updated WFCORE-1598:
-------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 3.0.0.Alpha7
(was: 3.0.0.Alpha6)
> Conversion of Elytron SecurityIdentity to Subject for communication with older hosts.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFCORE-1598
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1598
> Project: WildFly Core
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: Domain Management, Security
> Reporter: Darran Lofthouse
> Assignee: Darran Lofthouse
> Fix For: 3.0.0.Alpha7
>
>
> In the domain hierarchy clients trust the server they communicate with so this server currently sends a serialized representation of the Subject containing information about the user initiating the request.
> For Elytron we will use the new identity propagation features however for older slaves we will need to convert to a Subject representation.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
9 years, 3 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFCORE-1533) Integrate Management Access Control permission assignment with Elytron
by Brian Stansberry (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1533?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Brian Stansberry updated WFCORE-1533:
-------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 3.0.0.Alpha7
(was: 3.0.0.Alpha6)
> Integrate Management Access Control permission assignment with Elytron
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFCORE-1533
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1533
> Project: WildFly Core
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Components: Domain Management, Security
> Reporter: Darran Lofthouse
> Assignee: Darran Lofthouse
> Labels: affects_elytron
> Fix For: 3.0.0.Alpha7
>
>
> A big portion of management role based access control is taking the assigned roles and then mapping these to the permissions for that role.
> Elytron provides a new PermissionMapper interface that takes a SecurityIdentity and the roles mapped for that identity and returns a PermissionVerifier which can be as simple as a wrapper around a PermissionCollection.
> This will also be a good opportunity to start to move the role mapping out of the core management model to Elytron.
> After that Elytron allows for custom PermissionMapper implementations to be provided and associated with the domain using capabilities and requirements so we arrive at a point where provided the permission checks performed by management are generic enough custom PermissionMapper / PermissionVerifier implementations can be added that may or may not be role based.
> _Note: As with everything we are doing old and new need to be supported in parallel for a while although this may be achieved by providing default Elytron implementations that are wrappers around the old._
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
9 years, 3 months