HDFS-16868 Fix audit log duplicate issue when an ACE occurs in FSNamesystem.

[curie71]

HDFS-16868 checkSuperuserPrivilege and it' s caller log the same msg when an ACE occurs.

checkSuperuserPrivilege call logAuditEvent and throw ace when an AccessControlException occurs.

  // This method logs operationName without super user privilege.
  // It should be called without holding FSN lock.
  void checkSuperuserPrivilege(String operationName, String path)
      throws IOException {
    if (isPermissionEnabled) {
      try {
        FSPermissionChecker.setOperationType(operationName);
        FSPermissionChecker pc = getPermissionChecker();
        pc.checkSuperuserPrivilege(path);
      } catch(AccessControlException ace){
        logAuditEvent(false, operationName, path);
        throw ace;
      }
    }
  }

It' s callers like metaSave call it like this:

  /**
   * Dump all metadata into specified file
   * @param filename
   */
  void metaSave(String filename) throws IOException {
    String operationName = "metaSave";
    checkSuperuserPrivilege(operationName);
    ......
    try {
        ......
        metaSave(out);
        ......
      }
    } finally {
      readUnlock(operationName, getLockReportInfoSupplier(null));
    }
    logAuditEvent(true, operationName, null);
  }

but setQuota, addCachePool, modifyCachePool, removeCachePool, createEncryptionZone and reencryptEncryptionZone catch the ace and log the same msg again, it' s a waste of memory I think:

  /**
   * Set the namespace quota and storage space quota for a directory.
   * See {@link ClientProtocol#setQuota(String, long, long, StorageType)} for the
   * contract.
   * 
   * Note: This does not support ".inodes" relative path.
   */
  void setQuota(String src, long nsQuota, long ssQuota, StorageType type)
      throws IOException {
    ......
    try {
      if(!allowOwnerSetQuota) {
        checkSuperuserPrivilege(operationName, src);
      }
     ......
    } catch (AccessControlException ace) {
      logAuditEvent(false, operationName, src);
      throw ace;
    }
    getEditLog().logSync();
    logAuditEvent(true, operationName, src);
  }

Maybe we should move the checkSuperuserPrivilege out of the try block as metaSave and other callers do.

Description of PR

How was this patch tested?

For code changes:

• Does the title or this PR starts with the corresponding JIRA issue id (e.g. 'HADOOP-17799. Your PR title ...')?
• Object storage: have the integration tests been executed and the endpoint declared according to the connector-specific documentation?
• If adding new dependencies to the code, are these dependencies licensed in a way that is compatible for inclusion under ASF 2.0?
• If applicable, have you updated the LICENSE, LICENSE-binary, NOTICE-binary files?

[Hexiaoqiao]

LGTM. +1 from my side. Let's wait what jenkins will say.

[hadoop-yetus]

💔 -1 overall

Vote	Subsystem	Runtime	Logfile	Comment
+0 🆗	reexec	0m 55s		Docker mode activated.
			_ Prechecks _
+1 💚	dupname	0m 0s		No case conflicting files found.
+0 🆗	codespell	0m 1s		codespell was not available.
+0 🆗	detsecrets	0m 1s		detect-secrets was not available.
+1 💚	@author	0m 0s		The patch does not contain any @author tags.
-1 ❌	test4tests	0m 0s		The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.
			_ trunk Compile Tests _
+1 💚	mvninstall	41m 51s		trunk passed
+1 💚	compile	1m 29s		trunk passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.17+8-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu220.04
+1 💚	compile	1m 20s		trunk passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_352-8u352-ga-1~20.04-b08
+1 💚	checkstyle	1m 7s		trunk passed
+1 💚	mvnsite	1m 31s		trunk passed
+1 💚	javadoc	1m 8s		trunk passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.17+8-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu220.04
+1 💚	javadoc	1m 34s		trunk passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_352-8u352-ga-1~20.04-b08
+1 💚	spotbugs	3m 37s		trunk passed
+1 💚	shadedclient	25m 30s		branch has no errors when building and testing our client artifacts.
			_ Patch Compile Tests _
+1 💚	mvninstall	1m 20s		the patch passed
+1 💚	compile	1m 22s		the patch passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.17+8-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu220.04
+1 💚	javac	1m 22s		the patch passed
+1 💚	compile	1m 17s		the patch passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_352-8u352-ga-1~20.04-b08
+1 💚	javac	1m 17s		the patch passed
+1 💚	blanks	0m 0s		The patch has no blanks issues.
+1 💚	checkstyle	0m 54s		the patch passed
+1 💚	mvnsite	1m 22s		the patch passed
+1 💚	javadoc	0m 51s		the patch passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.17+8-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu220.04
+1 💚	javadoc	1m 30s		the patch passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_352-8u352-ga-1~20.04-b08
+1 💚	spotbugs	3m 27s		the patch passed
+1 💚	shadedclient	25m 55s		patch has no errors when building and testing our client artifacts.
			_ Other Tests _
+1 💚	unit	385m 18s		hadoop-hdfs in the patch passed.
+1 💚	asflicense	0m 57s		The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
		501m 41s

Subsystem	Report/Notes
Docker	ClientAPI=1.41 ServerAPI=1.41 base: https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/hadoop-multibranch/job/PR-5206/1/artifact/out/Dockerfile
GITHUB PR	#5206
Optional Tests	dupname asflicense compile javac javadoc mvninstall mvnsite unit shadedclient spotbugs checkstyle codespell detsecrets
uname	Linux 0ff4c89012d0 4.15.0-200-generic #211-Ubuntu SMP Thu Nov 24 18:16:04 UTC 2022 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Build tool	maven
Personality	dev-support/bin/hadoop.sh
git revision	trunk / f6c9741
Default Java	Private Build-1.8.0_352-8u352-ga-1~20.04-b08
Multi-JDK versions	/usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk-amd64:Ubuntu-11.0.17+8-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu220.04 /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64:Private Build-1.8.0_352-8u352-ga-1~20.04-b08
Test Results	https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/hadoop-multibranch/job/PR-5206/1/testReport/
Max. process+thread count	2194 (vs. ulimit of 5500)
modules	C: hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs U: hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs
Console output	https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/hadoop-multibranch/job/PR-5206/1/console
versions	git=2.25.1 maven=3.6.3 spotbugs=4.2.2
Powered by	Apache Yetus 0.14.0 https://yetus.apache.org

This message was automatically generated.

[cnauroth]

+1 LGTM

Nice find, @curie71 !

Perhaps the reason this went unnoticed is that TestAuditLogger does not cover these operations with assertions that they emitted exactly one log entry. We could potentially expand that test suite in the future.

[Hexiaoqiao]

Committed to trunk. @curie71 thanks for your contributions! @cnauroth Thanks for your reviews!

[curie71]

@Hexiaoqiao @cnauroth Thanks for your reviews!