[SPARK-46132][CORE] Support key password for JKS keys for RPC SSL #44264
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
Contributor
Author
|
cc: @mridulm |
Contributor
Author
|
hm, CI had worked fine on my local branch before I submitted this. Will submit an empty commit to retrigger CI |
mridulm
approved these changes
Dec 13, 2023
common/network-common/src/main/java/org/apache/spark/network/ssl/SSLFactory.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Contributor
|
Merged to master. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
Add support for a separate key password in addition to the key store password for JKS keys. This is needed for keys which may have a key password in addition to a key store password. We already had this support for the UI SSL support, so for compatibility we should have it here.
This wasn't done earlier as I wasn't sure how to implement it but the discussion in #43998 (comment) suggested the right way.
Why are the changes needed?
These are needed to support users who may have such keys configured.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
Added some unit tests
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No