Skip to content

HADOOP-16819 Possible inconsistent state of AbstractDelegationTokenSecretManager #1894

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: trunk
Choose a base branch
from
+6 −8
Open

HADOOP-16819 Possible inconsistent state of AbstractDelegationTokenSecretManager #1894

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
14 changes: 6 additions & 8 deletions ...ava/org/apache/hadoop/security/token/delegation/AbstractDelegationTokenSecretManager.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -369,16 +369,14 @@ private void updateCurrentKey() throws IOException {
int newCurrentId;
synchronized (this) {
newCurrentId = incrementCurrentKeyId();
}
DelegationKey newKey = new DelegationKey(newCurrentId, System
.currentTimeMillis()
+ keyUpdateInterval + tokenMaxLifetime, generateSecret());
//Log must be invoked outside the lock on 'this'
logUpdateMasterKey(newKey);
synchronized (this) {
currentKey = newKey;
currentKey = new DelegationKey(newCurrentId, System
.currentTimeMillis()
+ keyUpdateInterval + tokenMaxLifetime, generateSecret());

storeDelegationKey(currentKey);
}
//Log must be invoked outside the lock on 'this'
logUpdateMasterKey(currentKey);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

so this is now happening after the store? And both generateSecret and store are now synchronized?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, but I'm not sure why it was placed between them. They have to be in the same synchronized block to be atomic, otherwise other threads may find that there's no key for the current id.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see. Probably it's just the original order and then sync blocks went up around some of the ops

}

/**
Expand Down