[SPARK-47172][CORE][3.5] Add support for AES-GCM for RPC encryption #47060
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This change adds AES-GCM as an optional AES cipher mode for RPC encryption. The current default is using AES-CTR without any authentication. That would allow someone on the network to easily modify RPC contents on the wire and impact Spark behavior. See SPARK-47172 for more details.
Why are the changes needed?
The current default is using AES-CTR without any authentication. That would allow someone on the network to easily modify RPC contents on the wire and impact Spark behavior.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
Yes, it adds an additional configuration flag is reflected in the documentation.
How was this patch tested?
Existing unit tests are all ensured to pass. New unit tests are written to explicitly test GCM support and to verify that modifying ciphertext content will cause an exception and fail.
build/sbt "network-common/test:testOnly"
build/sbt "network-common/test:testOnly org.apache.spark.network.crypto.AuthIntegrationSuite"
build/sbt "network-common/test:testOnly org.apache.spark.network.crypto.AuthEngineSuite"
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
Nope.