-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.9k
Support AysncSecurityPolicy in SecurityPolicies.allOf. #12158
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.
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
mateusazis
wants to merge
1
commit into
grpc:master
Choose a base branch
from
mateusazis:all_async
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This doesn't seem to be a valid implementation of the checkAuthorizationAsync() API contract because it blocks the calling thread.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If ALL of your input
securityPolicies
are AsyncSecurityPolicy, I think you can implement an async allOf(). But if even one of your inputs is not an AsyncSecurityPolicy, someone needs to provide an Executor to make this possible.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My goal was to not force the clients to pick another API if they have any
AsyncSecurityPolicy
, specially because the current method is still compatible (though inefficient) withAsyncSecurityPolicy
, so I felt like having two methods could be confusing.My intention was to treat all policies as
AsyncSecurityPolicy
by obtaining aList<ListenableFuture<Status>>
and transforming them without blocking. If one of the policies is synchronous, we just produce an immediate future.This could be harmful, yes, if that policy were slow, but I see that as API misuse: the integrator should have provided an
AsyncSecurityPolicy
instead and we wouldn't monopolize a thread waiting on it.Please let me know what you think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IDK what more to say except that implementations of checkAuthorizationAsync() aren't allowed to block. If they were, there wouldn't be much reason for AsyncSecurityPolicy to even exist: Plain old SecurityPolicy.checkAuthorization() has always had the property that it may or may not block. And we've always been able to turn checkAuthorization() into a ListenableFuture using Futures.submit(securityPolicy::checkAuthorization, blockingExecutor). What makes checkAuthorizationAsync() interesting is that it promises not to block so I can call it from any thread.
Hiding a blocking call to checkAuthorization() behind checkAuthorizationAsync() actively defeats one of your two most important callers here:
grpc-java/binder/src/main/java/io/grpc/binder/internal/BinderTransport.java
Lines 778 to 782 in d2d8ed8
OK but your javadoc doesn't say any of that. Even if it did, we want APIs that are difficult to misuse and, ideally, impossible to misuse, by way of checks at compile time.