KAFKA-19411: Fix deleteAcls bug which allows more deletions than max records per user op #19974
Conversation
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
…s to be returned to user
ahuang98
changed the title
|
Thanks for this fix! One problem I see is that this will allow the deletion to partly go through, until we run out of records. It would be better for the deletion to fail completely or succeed completely... |
cmccabe
reviewed
Jun 17, 2025
| new RemoveAccessControlEntryRecord().setId(id), (short) 0)); | ||
| if (records.size() > MAX_RECORDS_PER_USER_OP) { | ||
| // check size limitation first before adding additional records | ||
| if (records.size() == MAX_RECORDS_PER_USER_OP) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using >= would be more future-proof I think...
cmccabe
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2025
…records per user op (#19974) If there are more deletion filters after we initially hit the `MAX_RECORDS_PER_USER_OP` bound, we will add an additional deletion record ontop of that for each additional filter. The current error message returned to the client is not useful either, adding logic so client doesn't just get `UNKNOWN_SERVER_EXCEPTION` with no details returned.
cmccabe
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2025
…records per user op (#19974) If there are more deletion filters after we initially hit the `MAX_RECORDS_PER_USER_OP` bound, we will add an additional deletion record ontop of that for each additional filter. The current error message returned to the client is not useful either, adding logic so client doesn't just get `UNKNOWN_SERVER_EXCEPTION` with no details returned.
cmccabe
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2025
…records per user op (#19974) If there are more deletion filters after we initially hit the `MAX_RECORDS_PER_USER_OP` bound, we will add an additional deletion record ontop of that for each additional filter. The current error message returned to the client is not useful either, adding logic so client doesn't just get `UNKNOWN_SERVER_EXCEPTION` with no details returned. Conflicts: - In AclControlManagerTest.java, use !isPresent instead of isEmpty so that this will work with java 8.
cmccabe
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2025
…records per user op (#19974) If there are more deletion filters after we initially hit the `MAX_RECORDS_PER_USER_OP` bound, we will add an additional deletion record ontop of that for each additional filter. The current error message returned to the client is not useful either, adding logic so client doesn't just get `UNKNOWN_SERVER_EXCEPTION` with no details returned. Conflicts: - In AclControlManagerTest.java, use !isPresent instead of isEmpty so that this will work with java 8.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
If there are more deletion filters after we initially hit the
MAX_RECORDS_PER_USER_OPbound, we will add an additional deletionrecord ontop of that for each additional filter.
The current error message returned to the client is not useful either,
adding logic so client doesn't just get
UNKNOWN_SERVER_EXCEPTIONwithno details returned.