-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 894
feat: add session actor middleware #897
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
Changes from all commits
f868929
ada9c1a
999c197
6f7b7d4
1cf0c58
175aa8c
cb9ec1e
efcee3d
4c9dd06
5bea2cb
dadef23
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ | ||
package session | ||
|
||
import ( | ||
"github.com/coder/coder/coderd/database" | ||
) | ||
|
||
// ActorType is an enum of all types of Actors. | ||
type ActorType string | ||
|
||
// ActorTypes. | ||
const ( | ||
ActorTypeUser ActorType = "user" | ||
// TODO: Dean - WorkspaceActor and SatelliteActor | ||
) | ||
|
||
// Actor represents an unauthenticated or authenticated client accessing the | ||
// API. To check authorization, callers should call pass the Actor into the | ||
// authz package to assert access. | ||
type Actor interface { | ||
// Type is the type of actor as an enum. This method exists rather than | ||
// switching on `actor.(type)` because doing a type switch is ~63% slower | ||
// according to a benchmark that Dean made. This performance difference adds | ||
// up over time because we will call this method on most requests. | ||
Type() ActorType | ||
// ID is the unique ID of the actor for logging purposes. | ||
ID() string | ||
// Name is a friendly, but consistent, name for the actor for logging | ||
// purposes. E.g. "deansheather" | ||
Name() string | ||
Comment on lines
+25
to
+29
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Wouldn't this either be There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. On each request I want to log the actor name at least, so it's easy to see which user made a request in the logs. I am removing the SystemActor though. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. is this ok @kylecarbs? The goal of this is so we can log the username without having to do a type cast because of the same reason as above (type switching just to read the username is very slow). There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If we're just going to have the There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We're not just going to have the UserActor type. We will also have a WorkspaceActor and eventually a SatelliteActor. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If we just have two or three though, could we just log the username / workspace / satellite name separately? If the actor type is primarily going to be used for that, I'm hesitant to say it's worth the grouping. I'd think we'd have separate routes for users / workspaces / satellites anyways, similar to how agents can only access specific routes right now. In that pattern, there's no opportunity to have a There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. That is one way to separate things. But that makes each actor type more distinct. RBAC means an agent token is just a I see value in the separating routes approach too. Both options require their own care. One thing I wonder about is will a |
||
|
||
// TODO: Steven - RBAC methods | ||
deansheather marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
} | ||
|
||
// UserActor represents an authenticated user actor. Any consumers that wish to | ||
// check if the actor is a user (and access user fields such as User.ID) can | ||
// do a checked type cast from Actor to UserActor. | ||
type UserActor interface { | ||
Actor | ||
User() *database.User | ||
APIKey() *database.APIKey | ||
} |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ | ||
// Package session provides session authentication via middleware for the Coder | ||
// HTTP API. It also exposes the Actor type, which is the intermediary layer | ||
// between identity and RBAC authorization. | ||
deansheather marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
// | ||
// The Actor types exposed by this package are consumed by the authz packages to | ||
// determine if a request is authorized to perform an API action. | ||
package session |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ | ||
package session | ||
|
||
import ( | ||
"context" | ||
"net/http" | ||
|
||
"github.com/coder/coder/coderd/database" | ||
) | ||
|
||
type actorContextKey struct{} | ||
|
||
// APIKey returns the API key from the ExtractAPIKey handler. The returned Actor | ||
// may be nil if the request was unauthenticated. | ||
// | ||
// Depends on ExtractActor middleware. | ||
func RequestActor(r *http.Request) Actor { | ||
actor, ok := r.Context().Value(actorContextKey{}).(Actor) | ||
if !ok { | ||
return nil | ||
} | ||
return actor | ||
} | ||
|
||
// ExtractActor determines the Actor from the request. It will try to get the | ||
// following actors in order: | ||
// 1. UserActor | ||
// 2. AnonymousActor | ||
func ExtractActor(db database.Store) func(http.Handler) http.Handler { | ||
return func(next http.Handler) http.Handler { | ||
return http.HandlerFunc(func(rw http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) { | ||
var ( | ||
ctx = r.Context() | ||
act Actor | ||
) | ||
|
||
// Try to get a UserActor. | ||
act, ok := UserActorFromRequest(ctx, db, rw, r) | ||
if !ok { | ||
return | ||
} | ||
|
||
// TODO: Dean - WorkspaceActor, SatelliteActor etc. | ||
|
||
ctx = context.WithValue(ctx, actorContextKey{}, act) | ||
next.ServeHTTP(rw, r.WithContext(ctx)) | ||
return | ||
}) | ||
} | ||
} |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ | ||
package session | ||
|
||
import ( | ||
"net/http" | ||
"net/http/httptest" | ||
"sync/atomic" | ||
"testing" | ||
"time" | ||
|
||
"github.com/stretchr/testify/require" | ||
|
||
"github.com/coder/coder/coderd/database/databasefake" | ||
"github.com/coder/coder/coderd/httpapi" | ||
Comment on lines
+10
to
+13
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Just curious, are we still splitting |
||
) | ||
|
||
func TestMiddleware(t *testing.T) { | ||
t.Parallel() | ||
|
||
successHandler := http.HandlerFunc(func(rw http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) { | ||
// Only called if the API key passes through the handler. | ||
httpapi.Write(rw, http.StatusOK, httpapi.Response{ | ||
Message: "it worked!", | ||
}) | ||
}) | ||
|
||
t.Run("UserActor", func(t *testing.T) { | ||
t.Parallel() | ||
|
||
t.Run("Error", func(t *testing.T) { | ||
t.Parallel() | ||
var ( | ||
db = databasefake.New() | ||
r = httptest.NewRequest("GET", "/", nil) | ||
rw = httptest.NewRecorder() | ||
) | ||
r.AddCookie(&http.Cookie{ | ||
Name: AuthCookie, | ||
Value: "invalid-api-key", | ||
}) | ||
|
||
ExtractActor(db)(successHandler).ServeHTTP(rw, r) | ||
res := rw.Result() | ||
defer res.Body.Close() | ||
require.Equal(t, http.StatusUnauthorized, res.StatusCode) | ||
}) | ||
|
||
t.Run("OK", func(t *testing.T) { | ||
t.Parallel() | ||
var ( | ||
db = databasefake.New() | ||
u = newUser(t, db) | ||
_, token = newAPIKey(t, db, u, time.Time{}, time.Time{}) | ||
r = httptest.NewRequest("GET", "/", nil) | ||
rw = httptest.NewRecorder() | ||
) | ||
r.AddCookie(&http.Cookie{ | ||
Name: AuthCookie, | ||
Value: token, | ||
}) | ||
|
||
var ( | ||
called int64 | ||
handler = http.HandlerFunc(func(rw http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) { | ||
atomic.AddInt64(&called, 1) | ||
|
||
// Double check the UserActor. | ||
act := RequestActor(r) | ||
require.NotNil(t, act) | ||
require.Equal(t, ActorTypeUser, act.Type()) | ||
require.Equal(t, u.ID.String(), act.ID()) | ||
require.Equal(t, u.Username, act.Name()) | ||
|
||
userActor, ok := act.(UserActor) | ||
require.True(t, ok) | ||
require.Equal(t, u, *userActor.User()) | ||
|
||
httpapi.Write(rw, http.StatusOK, httpapi.Response{ | ||
Message: "success", | ||
}) | ||
}) | ||
) | ||
|
||
ExtractActor(db)(handler).ServeHTTP(rw, r) | ||
res := rw.Result() | ||
defer res.Body.Close() | ||
require.Equal(t, http.StatusOK, res.StatusCode) | ||
|
||
require.EqualValues(t, 1, called) | ||
}) | ||
}) | ||
|
||
t.Run("Fallthrough", func(t *testing.T) { | ||
t.Parallel() | ||
|
||
var ( | ||
db = databasefake.New() | ||
r = httptest.NewRequest("GET", "/", nil) | ||
rw = httptest.NewRecorder() | ||
) | ||
|
||
var ( | ||
called int64 | ||
handler = http.HandlerFunc(func(rw http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) { | ||
atomic.AddInt64(&called, 1) | ||
|
||
// Actor should be nil. | ||
act := RequestActor(r) | ||
require.Nil(t, act) | ||
|
||
httpapi.Write(rw, http.StatusOK, httpapi.Response{ | ||
Message: "success", | ||
}) | ||
}) | ||
) | ||
|
||
// No auth provided. | ||
ExtractActor(db)(handler).ServeHTTP(rw, r) | ||
res := rw.Result() | ||
defer res.Body.Close() | ||
require.Equal(t, http.StatusOK, res.StatusCode) | ||
|
||
require.EqualValues(t, 1, called) | ||
}) | ||
} |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@ | ||
package session | ||
|
||
import ( | ||
"context" | ||
"crypto/sha256" | ||
"crypto/subtle" | ||
"database/sql" | ||
"fmt" | ||
"net/http" | ||
"strings" | ||
"time" | ||
|
||
"golang.org/x/xerrors" | ||
|
||
"github.com/coder/coder/coderd/database" | ||
"github.com/coder/coder/coderd/httpapi" | ||
) | ||
|
||
const ( | ||
// AuthCookie represents the name of the cookie the API key is stored in. | ||
AuthCookie = "session_token" | ||
|
||
// nolint:gosec // this is not a credential | ||
deansheather marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
apiKeyInvalidMessage = "API key is invalid" | ||
apiKeyLifetime = 24 * time.Hour | ||
) | ||
|
||
type userActor struct { | ||
user database.User | ||
apiKey database.APIKey | ||
} | ||
|
||
var _ UserActor = &userActor{} | ||
|
||
func NewUserActor(u database.User, apiKey database.APIKey) UserActor { | ||
return &userActor{ | ||
user: u, | ||
apiKey: apiKey, | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
func (*userActor) Type() ActorType { | ||
return ActorTypeUser | ||
} | ||
|
||
func (ua *userActor) ID() string { | ||
return ua.user.ID.String() | ||
} | ||
|
||
func (ua *userActor) Name() string { | ||
return ua.user.Username | ||
} | ||
|
||
func (ua *userActor) User() *database.User { | ||
return &ua.user | ||
} | ||
|
||
func (ua *userActor) APIKey() *database.APIKey { | ||
return &ua.apiKey | ||
} | ||
|
||
// UserActorFromRequest tries to get a UserActor from the API key supplied in | ||
// the request cookies. If the cookie doesn't exist, nil is returned. If there | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Just a note in the future we need to also support a custom Header for cli auth. Cookie auth will need to do CSRF in future. |
||
// was an error that was responded to, false is returned. | ||
// | ||
// You should probably be calling session.ExtractActor as a middleware, or | ||
// session.RequestActor instead. | ||
Comment on lines
+66
to
+67
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If this is true, could we keep this function private? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. No because then the linter got mad at me for having the tests be There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Wouldn't testing the middleware test this function in that case? That's how it works in There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I wanted to write tests for this function by itself instead of having a giant test file for the middleware when the middleware itself is very small. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Our tests may be deceiving to a caller if they primarily test and exposed a function we don't recommend they use. The middleware is only valuable if it calls this other function, so I'd be hesitant to say the middleware's expectations are small. That's not to say decomposition isn't right for this case, but I do think our tests should primarily test the primary functions we expose. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'll do the internal tests for the entire package in that case then There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. is this ok? @kylecarbs There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think it's best to test the HTTP handler that's being exposed to the API; not being able to test that handler will likely result in a similar experience for callers. Is there a reason we can't test the handler with similar levels of functionality? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The middleware handler is tested to handle all possible output states from the user actor function. The user actor tests additionally also test each possible failure state individually. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @kylecarbs I disagree that we should only test a package api imo. I am all for testing individual functions in a package. I understand unit tests can help api design, and those tests should still exist in the If the So I think |
||
func UserActorFromRequest(ctx context.Context, db database.Store, rw http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) (UserActor, bool) { | ||
cookie, err := r.Cookie(AuthCookie) | ||
if err != nil || cookie.Value == "" { | ||
// No cookie provided, return true so any actor handlers further down | ||
// the chain can make their attempt. | ||
return nil, true | ||
} | ||
|
||
// TODO: Dean - workspace agent token auth should not share the same cookie | ||
// name as regular auth | ||
if strings.Count(cookie.Value, "-") == 4 { | ||
// Skip anything that looks like a UUID for now. | ||
return nil, true | ||
} | ||
|
||
keyID, _, hashedSecret, err := parseAPIKey(cookie.Value) | ||
if err != nil { | ||
httpapi.Write(rw, http.StatusUnauthorized, httpapi.Response{ | ||
Message: fmt.Sprintf("invalid API key cookie %q: %v", AuthCookie, err), | ||
}) | ||
return nil, false | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Get the API key from the database. | ||
key, err := db.GetAPIKeyByID(ctx, keyID) | ||
if xerrors.Is(err, sql.ErrNoRows) { | ||
httpapi.Write(rw, http.StatusUnauthorized, httpapi.Response{ | ||
Message: apiKeyInvalidMessage, | ||
}) | ||
return nil, false | ||
} | ||
if err != nil { | ||
httpapi.Write(rw, http.StatusInternalServerError, httpapi.Response{ | ||
Message: fmt.Sprintf("get API key by id: %s", err.Error()), | ||
}) | ||
return nil, false | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Checking to see if the secret is valid. | ||
if subtle.ConstantTimeCompare(key.HashedSecret, hashedSecret[:]) != 1 { | ||
deansheather marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
httpapi.Write(rw, http.StatusUnauthorized, httpapi.Response{ | ||
Message: apiKeyInvalidMessage, | ||
}) | ||
return nil, false | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Check if the key has expired. | ||
now := database.Now() | ||
if key.ExpiresAt.Before(now) { | ||
httpapi.Write(rw, http.StatusUnauthorized, httpapi.Response{ | ||
Message: apiKeyInvalidMessage, | ||
}) | ||
return nil, false | ||
} | ||
|
||
// TODO: Dean - check if the corresponding OIDC or OAuth token has expired | ||
// once OIDC is implemented | ||
|
||
// Only update LastUsed and key expiry once an hour to prevent database | ||
// spam. | ||
if now.Sub(key.LastUsed) > time.Hour || key.ExpiresAt.Sub(now) <= apiKeyLifetime-time.Hour { | ||
err := db.UpdateAPIKeyByID(ctx, database.UpdateAPIKeyByIDParams{ | ||
ID: key.ID, | ||
ExpiresAt: now.Add(apiKeyLifetime), | ||
LastUsed: now, | ||
OIDCAccessToken: key.OIDCAccessToken, | ||
OIDCRefreshToken: key.OIDCRefreshToken, | ||
OIDCExpiry: key.OIDCExpiry, | ||
}) | ||
if err != nil { | ||
httpapi.Write(rw, http.StatusInternalServerError, httpapi.Response{ | ||
Message: fmt.Sprintf("could not refresh API key: %s", err.Error()), | ||
}) | ||
return nil, false | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Get the associated user. | ||
u, err := db.GetUserByID(ctx, key.UserID) | ||
if err != nil { | ||
httpapi.Write(rw, http.StatusInternalServerError, httpapi.Response{ | ||
Message: fmt.Sprintf("could not fetch current user: %s", err.Error()), | ||
}) | ||
return nil, false | ||
} | ||
|
||
return NewUserActor(u, key), true | ||
} | ||
|
||
func parseAPIKey(apiKey string) (id, secret string, hashed []byte, err error) { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Just and example @kylecarbs of a great function to unit test with an easy tabled test. To do this using the middleware would be such a pain because invalid Regardless if the invalid strings reach this in prod, I still think it's of value to know this function works as intended incase it's ever moved/reused. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If this function is well-tested outside of the middleware, it could be argued the middleware doesn't have to be. If both are expected to be well-tested, then tests become duplicative. I'm of the opinion testing the user-expected behavior is much more important than if the code actually works, because the user just wants it to work for them. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The middleware unit test will not test this one function to all of it's edge cases. For one, the middleware does some basic validation above this usage, so any tokens that fall those checks won't make it to The code might be able to be refactored to ensure all keys hit
I don't see how these are not related. These functions are the building blocks, and often they will be reused/adapted by a developer in the future (months out). I am of the opinion if I write helper functions like this, it's very easy to build a tabled test to confirm my implementation is correct. And if someone comes in later, the tabled tests can often serve better than a comment for what should happen in given cases, because let's be honest sometimes comments are vague/ambiguous. A tabled test does not have this ambiguity. Worse case the tabled test is missing an edge case, in which case the new developer can easily add it. I do agree if you sufficiently test all the building blocks of a function, then you do not need to test the, in this case, the middle function as exhaustively. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The functions build the API surface, but the most important part of the code is that the API works as expected. I'm not arguing against testing the internals, but we should try to get away with testing via externals first to reduce complexity. |
||
// APIKeys are formatted: ${id}-${secret}. The ID is 10 characters and the | ||
// secret is 22. | ||
parts := strings.Split(apiKey, "-") | ||
if len(parts) != 2 || len(parts[0]) != 10 || len(parts[1]) != 22 { | ||
return "", "", nil, xerrors.New("invalid API key format") | ||
} | ||
|
||
// We hash the secret before getting the key from the database to ensure we | ||
// keep this function fixed time. | ||
var ( | ||
keyID = parts[0] | ||
keySecret = parts[1] | ||
hashedSecret = sha256.Sum256([]byte(keySecret)) | ||
) | ||
|
||
return keyID, keySecret, hashedSecret[:], nil | ||
} |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.