Add krb5sslloginmodule that will populate userPrincipal that can be mapped to roles independently
Generalised callback handlers to take a connection and pull certs or peerprincipal based on
callback. This bubbled up into api change in securitystore and security manager
If replication blocked anything on the journal
the processing from clients would be blocked
and nothing would work.
As part of this fix I am using an executor on ServerSessionPacketHandler
which will also scale better as the reader from Netty would be feed immediately.
Core client with netty connector and acceptor doing kerberos
jaas.doAs around sslengine init such that the SSL handshake can do kerberos ticket
generaton and validation.
The kerberos authenticated user is then validated with the security manager before
being populated into the message userId.
The feature is enabled with the kerb5Config property. When lowercase it is the
principal. With a leading uppercase char it is the login.config entry to use.
The MAPPED journal refactoring include:
- simplified lifecycle and logic (eg fixed file size with single mmap memory region)
- supports for the TimedBuffer to coalesce msyncs (via Decorator pattern)
- TLAB pooling of direct ByteBuffer like the NIO journal
- remove of old benchmarks and benchmark dependencies
The default id-cache-size is 20000 and the default
confirmation-window-size is 1MB. It turns out the 1MB
size is too small for id-cache-size.
To fix it we adjust the confirmation-window-size to 10MB. Also
a test is added to guarantee it won't break this rule when this
default value is to be changed to any new value.
When a large message is replicated to backup, a pendingID is generated
when the large message is finished. This pendingID is generated by a
BatchingIDGenerator at backup.
It is possible that a pendingID generated at backup may be a duplicate
to an ID generated at live server.
This can cause a problem when a large message with a messageID that is
the same as another largemessage's pendingID is replicated and stored
in the backup's journal, and then a deleteRecord for the pendingID
is appended. If backup becomes live and loads the journal, it will
drop the large message add record because there is a deleteRecord of
the same ID (even though it is a pendingID of another message).
As a result the expecting client will never get this large message.
So in summary, the root cause is that the pendingIDs for large
messages are generated at backup while backup is not alive.
The solution to this is that instead of the backup generating
the pendingID, we make them all be generated in advance
at live server and let them replicated to backup whereever needed.
The ID generater at backup only works when backup becomes live
(when it is properly initialized from journal).
It fixes compatibility issues with JMS Core clients using the old address model, allowing the client to query JMS temporary queues too.
you would eventually see this issue when using older clients:
AMQ119019: Queue already exists
This method name would clash with ServiceComponent
As the real meaning here on this method is just to failover
So I've renamed the method to avoid the clash with my next commit
(I've done this on a separate commit as you may need to redo this
commit from scratch again in other branches instead of lots of clashes on cherry-pick)
When a large message is being diverted, a new copy of the original
message is created and replicated (if there is a backup) to the backup.
In LargeServerMessageImpl.copy(long) it reuse a byte array to copy
message body. It is possible that one block of date is read into
the byte array before the previous read has been replicated,
causing the replicated bytes to corrupt.
If we make a copy of the byte array before replication, the corruption
of data will be avoided.
The JDBCSequentialFile blocks on the writeLock when opening. There is
no need to block here, in fact it may cause issues when opening and
syncing concurrently. Instead an AtomicBoolean is enough to prevent the
file from being reloaded.
Before sending of messages to server 0 begins, the test
should wait until consumer is registered at RemoteQueueBindingImpl
on server 0. Otherwise some messages may not be rebalanced
to server 1.
it doesn't really matter the number of files.. as long as the data is valid.
This type of assertion limits the implementation. it's mocking test with too much intrusion
over the implementation. Hence I'm removing these clauses that will fail eventually.
gtully
Clebert Suconic
Daniel Kulp
Francesco Nigro
Armand Roelens
Howard Gao
Dmitrii Tikhomirov
Josh Reagan
Christopher L. Shannon (cshannon)
Justin Bertram
Martyn Taylor
Erich Duda