| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A node told (REFUSALS) that it holds a change the swarm's rules refuse,
and whose own rules refuse it too, dropped it and everything built on
it on one peer's word, however much that was; its own writes among them
went to the quarantine, the others' nowhere.
* A drop taking more than 100 changes, or more than ten and a tenth of
the document, now
waits until a second member names the same change: the node's rules
and one peer's word could both be off. Logged as an error, counted in
/admin/stats (sync.dropsHeld).
* The others' changes dropped are listed with the refused (GET
/admin/refused, "taken unjudged, dropped"), for operators to see.
The cheap half of asking the others (future-work.md, Telling a
malicious change from a wrong policy).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Only a user who may manage users could change a user's keys: a user
couldn't add a new laptop's key, or remove a lost one.
A user now manages its own keys, whatever else it may do:
* GET /auth/keys: its keys, its entry, and the envelope holding it
under a strict policy (`signed`), to sign against.
* PUT /auth/keys/{id} with an authorized_keys line, DELETE
/auth/keys/{id}: one change, as the user. The rules take a write of
_continuum/users/<name>/keys/… from the user it names.
* Under a strict policy, the user signs its entry with only its keys
changed, with a key it holds already (envelope::check takes that from
the user itself), PUT to its own entry even without write on the
registry; continuum-signed key-add and key-remove do so.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Since judge_held moved to access::rules (1140), swarm::refusals uses
ReadDoc no more; clippy warned.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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 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).
|
