| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Review 2, N3: 1150 let any member write an abort decision once a remake
had expired a grace period ago, judged by the change's own time, the
writer's word. A member could race the coordinator's legitimate commit
with an abort dated as it liked; both taken, Automerge shows
one, and nodes that acted on the commit split from those that didn't.
The two writers of such aborts are operator requests whose endpoints
already need write on _continuum/remakes: aborting an expired remake
(DELETE /admin/remakes/{id}) and superseding one (POST
/admin/remakes?force=supersede). Both now commit as the user who asks
(the proposal and its vote with them, for a supersede), which the rules
take as one who may write the decision. The clause judging an abort by
its time goes, and with it the time the rules carried. An expired
remake is still aborted through any member, by an operator.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Review 2, N1: a strict manifest wasn't bound to its base. Any member
could propose an old, legitimately signed one again at the current
heads; nodes would verify it and vote, and every value at a signed
place changed or added since (a ban, a new user, a rotated key, a
changed userSigned or sealed declaration) would be deleted, nothing
after the base being left to replay.
The manifest now names the epoch and the heads it was made at, and a
node takes it (proposing or voting) only for a remake of that epoch
with exactly that base. GET /admin/strict-manifest makes it so;
continuum-signed strict proposes at those heads already.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A strict remake takes a majority of members whose --strict-keys take
its manifest's signer: no node votes for one without, so
--follow-strict-remakes (1173) goes. A node that doesn't vote still
switches once the others commit, as with any remake.
So that an operator can tell why one fails: a strict remake aborted
for want of a majority (the voting period over, or a majority out of
reach) says in its reason (GET /admin/remakes/{id}, and the
coordinator's log) which members didn't vote, and that a member votes
for one only with its manifest signed by a key of its --strict-keys.
Each of those logs why itself (`Not voting for a strict remake`).
The sim a_strict_remake_too_few_take: only a takes the manifest; the
remake aborts, naming b and c.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Until a swarm is strict, the user a change names is its node's word, so
any member could have planted registry entries, policy, bans or
user-signed values as any user, plain or signed by a key it put there
itself; writing the strict policy trusted all of it as it was.
A remake of a new kind, `strict`, turns a swarm strict instead:
* Its content is a manifest (access::strict): the swarm, the strict
policy, and each value kept at the places values are signed, by the
SHA-256 of its JSON, signed by an operator (ssh-keygen -Y sign -n
continuum-strict).
* Every node builds the next epoch as compaction does, keeping at the
signed places only the values the manifest names, as they were at
the base, and writing its policy (RemakeKind::protocol, the one kind
that changes protocol data). Writes after the base reach the new
epoch only by replays, judged by the strict policy.
* A node votes for one only with its manifest signed by one of
--strict-keys, keys given out of the document; without any, for none
(logged once, `Not voting for a strict remake`), unless
--follow-strict-remakes. A coordinator proposes only what it would
vote for (403). Once a majority commits one, every node switches, as
with any remake: refusing to switch would only cut a node off.
* GET /admin/strict-manifest gives the manifest keeping everything held
now, the values for review and the heads they are at;
continuum-signed strict shows them, signs once confirmed and proposes
at those heads.
The sim a_swarm_turning_strict_through_a_remake: a member plants a
registry entry as a manager; the operator's manifest leaves it out; a
and b, given the key, commit; c, without, follows; the entry is gone
and the policy strict everywhere.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Simulations backing what the review's fixes changed, beyond their unit
tests:
* a_change_forged_under_another_members_actor (1145): a change made
under b's actor at the seq of b's last change, judged by a: refused
as forged, b not refused as a whole, b's next write taken.
* an_expired_remake_aborted_by_any_member (1150): under the policy, a
coordinator gone before it decides; b aborts its remake once it
expired a grace period ago, c takes the abort, nothing refused.
* a_strict_swarm (1155): a value alice signed for another swarm,
replacing the one there, is refused as such.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Review 3.1, part of finding 12: a signed value's payload bound path,
user, time and prev, but not the swarm. A user with the same name and
key in two swarms could have an envelope replayed from one into the
other, wherever the path holds no envelope yet (prev "").
The payload now names the swarm (`swarm`), and a node takes an envelope
only for its own. /auth/whoami says the swarm, and continuum-signed and
the example in api.md sign it. Wire version 44: nodes before this
refuse such envelopes, and those after refuse the old ones.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a_swarm_judging_every_change waited for c's forged write to be refused
by a, b and d each. The first to judge it tells c, which drops it before
the others may have it: wait for a refusal on any of them, then for c to
drop it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In a_strict_swarm and sealed_values, c's forged writes were waited for
to be refused by a and by b. Whichever judges them first tells c, which
drops them before the other may have judged them (it waits for their
signature, or never gets them): wait for a refusal on either, then for
c to drop them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The API checks the path a request asks for; the rules judge everything
the change does. Where they disagreed, the honest node's change was
refused by every other node, and with signatures required the node was
refused as a whole. The plan had both gates run the same judgement.
Under a policy, each change a node makes (its own writes and those
through the API) is now judged by rules::judge as receivers will judge
it, before it is signed or sent; one every node would refuse is rolled
back (the document forked at the heads before it, same actor: the
change never left) and the request refused with 403 (StoreError::
Refused). rules::judge_held, judging a change the document holds,
moves from swarm::refusals to access::rules for both.
The simulations that play a member past its own checks write with a
helper that bypasses them (forge).
Review finding 3 (the same judgement at both gates).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A REFUSALS naming the swarm's first change made the node receiving it
judge that change again in a document that isn't empty, refuse it as
"a change without dependencies that isn't the epoch's root", and drop
it with everything built on it: its whole document.
The first epoch's root is now the first change a document holds, as it
comes to an empty one or as it is in one; a change judged again on a
peer's word is never refused for having no dependencies; and
drop_taken refuses to drop an epoch's root, or anything that would
leave nothing kept, logging an error instead.
Review finding 1 (critical).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A member writing past its API's checks is refused, told, drops its
change and is taken again; a node under a policy it doesn't know
takes no writes and syncs on.
Auth plan M6 (tests).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A node refusing changes a peer brought tells it which broke a rule; the
peer judges them itself, and if its rules refuse them too, drops them
with all built on them (its document forked without them, a fresh
actor), quarantining its own writes among them. Wire version 42.
Auth plan M6 (rejoin on taint).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
With signatures required, a member whose own change broke a rule is
refused as a whole: sent nothing, shown in /peers (refused), in stats
(sync.refusedPeers) and on the dashboard, until a change of its is
taken again or the epoch changes.
Auth plan M6 (diverged standing).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A value sealed for its declared readers goes everywhere; one sealed
for a stranger too, or plain, gets nothing past the others.
Auth plan M8.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Signed values everywhere, carried over by a remake and replaced after
it; a member writing the registry or a signed path plain gets nothing
past the others.
Auth plan M7.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The first users' SSH keys, recorded at genesis with their entries, so a
swarm can be strict from its start.
Auth plan M7.
|
|
|
A swarm judging every change: honest writes everywhere, a joining node
registers, a forged write stays where it was made; a compaction under
the policy refuses nothing honest.
Auth plan M6.
|
