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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fail loading an ACL config if the provided file is empty and enforceTableACLConfig is true #17274

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Fail loading an ACL config if the provided file is empty and enforceTableACLConfig is true #17274

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

garfthoffman
Copy link

Description

When the ACL file is loaded, add a check to verify that the config is not empty and fail execution if the --enforce-tableacl-config flag has been provided.

Related Issue(s)

closes #17273

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

@vitess-bot vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Nov 22, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Nov 22, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Nov 22, 2024
arthurschreiber
arthurschreiber reviewed Nov 22, 2024
View reviewed changes
go/vt/vttablet/tabletserver/tabletserver.go Outdated
@@ -367,7 +367,8 @@ func (tsv *TabletServer) initACL(tableACLConfigFile string, enforceTableACLConfi
tsv.ClearQueryPlanCache()
},
)
if err != nil {
// Log failure if either there was a problem loading the ACL, or if the ACL is empty
if err != nil || tableacl.GetCurrentConfig().String() == "" {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to perform this validation. I think a config file containing an empty JSON object should be treated as "valid", but a truncated file seems like a pretty clear configuration mistake. 🤔

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Addressed in eca5d61

@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 23, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 67.37%. Comparing base (0b51839) to head (d47a37b).
Report is 68 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #17274   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.37%   67.37%           
=======================================
  Files        1573     1573           
  Lines      253113   253116    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits       170538   170544    +6     
+ Misses      82575    82572    -3

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

This PR is being marked as stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. To rectify, you may do any of the following:

  • Push additional commits to the associated branch.
  • Remove the stale label.
  • Add a comment indicating why it is not stale.

If no action is taken within 7 days, this PR will be closed.

@github-actions github-actions bot added Stale Marks PRs as stale after a period of inactivity, which are then closed after a grace period. and removed Stale Marks PRs as stale after a period of inactivity, which are then closed after a grace period. labels Dec 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@arthurschreiber arthurschreiber arthurschreiber left review comments

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal Awaiting requested review from harshit-gangal harshit-gangal will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review harshit-gangal is a code owner

@systay systay Awaiting requested review from systay systay will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review systay is a code owner

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach Awaiting requested review from shlomi-noach shlomi-noach will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review shlomi-noach is a code owner

@rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps Awaiting requested review from rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review rohit-nayak-ps is a code owner

@timvaillancourt timvaillancourt Awaiting requested review from timvaillancourt timvaillancourt will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review timvaillancourt is a code owner

@deepthi deepthi Awaiting requested review from deepthi deepthi will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review deepthi is a code owner

At least 2 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v22.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug Report: Empty/truncated file considered valid when enforceTableACLConfig is set
2 participants
@garfthoffman @arthurschreiber