open-consul/agent/consul/intention_endpoint_test.go

1282 lines
32 KiB
Go
Raw Normal View History

package consul
import (
"os"
"testing"
"time"
"github.com/hashicorp/consul/acl"
"github.com/hashicorp/consul/agent/structs"
"github.com/hashicorp/consul/testrpc"
"github.com/hashicorp/net-rpc-msgpackrpc"
"github.com/stretchr/testify/assert"
"github.com/stretchr/testify/require"
)
// Test basic creation
func TestIntentionApply_new(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServer(t)
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Setup a basic record to create
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: &structs.Intention{
SourceNS: structs.IntentionDefaultNamespace,
SourceName: "test",
DestinationNS: structs.IntentionDefaultNamespace,
DestinationName: "test",
2018-03-03 17:43:37 +00:00
Action: structs.IntentionActionAllow,
SourceType: structs.IntentionSourceConsul,
2018-03-03 17:43:37 +00:00
Meta: map[string]string{},
},
}
var reply string
// Record now to check created at time
now := time.Now()
// Create
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
assert.NotEmpty(reply)
2018-02-28 18:44:49 +00:00
// Read
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
{
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
IntentionID: ixn.Intention.ID,
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Get", req, &resp))
assert.Len(resp.Intentions, 1)
2018-02-28 18:44:49 +00:00
actual := resp.Intentions[0]
assert.Equal(resp.Index, actual.ModifyIndex)
assert.WithinDuration(now, actual.CreatedAt, 5*time.Second)
assert.WithinDuration(now, actual.UpdatedAt, 5*time.Second)
2018-02-28 18:44:49 +00:00
actual.CreateIndex, actual.ModifyIndex = 0, 0
actual.CreatedAt = ixn.Intention.CreatedAt
actual.UpdatedAt = ixn.Intention.UpdatedAt
actual.Hash = ixn.Intention.Hash
ixn.Intention.UpdatePrecedence()
assert.Equal(ixn.Intention, actual)
2018-02-28 18:44:49 +00:00
}
}
// Test the source type defaults
func TestIntentionApply_defaultSourceType(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServer(t)
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Setup a basic record to create
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: &structs.Intention{
SourceNS: structs.IntentionDefaultNamespace,
SourceName: "test",
DestinationNS: structs.IntentionDefaultNamespace,
DestinationName: "test",
Action: structs.IntentionActionAllow,
},
}
var reply string
// Create
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
assert.NotEmpty(reply)
// Read
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
{
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
IntentionID: ixn.Intention.ID,
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Get", req, &resp))
assert.Len(resp.Intentions, 1)
actual := resp.Intentions[0]
assert.Equal(structs.IntentionSourceConsul, actual.SourceType)
}
}
// Shouldn't be able to create with an ID set
func TestIntentionApply_createWithID(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServer(t)
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Setup a basic record to create
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: &structs.Intention{
ID: generateUUID(),
SourceName: "test",
},
}
var reply string
// Create
err := msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply)
assert.NotNil(err)
assert.Contains(err, "ID must be empty")
}
// Test basic updating
func TestIntentionApply_updateGood(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServer(t)
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Setup a basic record to create
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: &structs.Intention{
SourceNS: structs.IntentionDefaultNamespace,
SourceName: "test",
DestinationNS: structs.IntentionDefaultNamespace,
DestinationName: "test",
2018-03-03 17:43:37 +00:00
Action: structs.IntentionActionAllow,
SourceType: structs.IntentionSourceConsul,
2018-03-03 17:43:37 +00:00
Meta: map[string]string{},
},
}
var reply string
// Create
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
assert.NotEmpty(reply)
// Read CreatedAt
var createdAt time.Time
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
{
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
IntentionID: ixn.Intention.ID,
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Get", req, &resp))
assert.Len(resp.Intentions, 1)
actual := resp.Intentions[0]
createdAt = actual.CreatedAt
}
// Sleep a bit so that the updated at will definitely be different, not much
time.Sleep(1 * time.Millisecond)
// Update
ixn.Op = structs.IntentionOpUpdate
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
ixn.Intention.SourceName = "*"
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
// Read
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
{
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
IntentionID: ixn.Intention.ID,
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Get", req, &resp))
assert.Len(resp.Intentions, 1)
actual := resp.Intentions[0]
assert.Equal(createdAt, actual.CreatedAt)
assert.WithinDuration(time.Now(), actual.UpdatedAt, 5*time.Second)
actual.CreateIndex, actual.ModifyIndex = 0, 0
actual.CreatedAt = ixn.Intention.CreatedAt
actual.UpdatedAt = ixn.Intention.UpdatedAt
actual.Hash = ixn.Intention.Hash
ixn.Intention.UpdatePrecedence()
assert.Equal(ixn.Intention, actual)
}
}
// Shouldn't be able to update a non-existent intention
func TestIntentionApply_updateNonExist(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServer(t)
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Setup a basic record to create
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpUpdate,
Intention: &structs.Intention{
ID: generateUUID(),
SourceName: "test",
},
}
var reply string
// Create
err := msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply)
assert.NotNil(err)
assert.Contains(err, "Cannot modify non-existent intention")
}
// Test basic deleting
func TestIntentionApply_deleteGood(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServer(t)
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Setup a basic record to create
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: &structs.Intention{
2018-03-03 17:43:37 +00:00
SourceNS: "test",
SourceName: "test",
DestinationNS: "test",
DestinationName: "test",
Action: structs.IntentionActionAllow,
},
}
var reply string
// Create
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
assert.NotEmpty(reply)
// Delete
ixn.Op = structs.IntentionOpDelete
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
// Read
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
{
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
IntentionID: ixn.Intention.ID,
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
err := msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Get", req, &resp)
assert.NotNil(err)
assert.Contains(err, ErrIntentionNotFound.Error())
}
}
// Test apply with a deny ACL
func TestIntentionApply_aclDeny(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
c.ACLDefaultPolicy = "deny"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Create an ACL with write permissions
var token string
{
var rules = `
service "foo" {
policy = "deny"
intentions = "write"
}`
req := structs.ACLRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.ACLSet,
ACL: structs.ACL{
Name: "User token",
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
Type: structs.ACLTokenTypeClient,
Rules: rules,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "ACL.Apply", &req, &token))
}
// Setup a basic record to create
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: structs.TestIntention(t),
}
ixn.Intention.DestinationName = "foobar"
// Create without a token should error since default deny
var reply string
err := msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply)
assert.True(acl.IsErrPermissionDenied(err))
// Now add the token and try again.
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = token
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
// Read
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
{
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
IntentionID: ixn.Intention.ID,
QueryOptions: structs.QueryOptions{Token: "root"},
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Get", req, &resp))
assert.Len(resp.Intentions, 1)
actual := resp.Intentions[0]
assert.Equal(resp.Index, actual.ModifyIndex)
actual.CreateIndex, actual.ModifyIndex = 0, 0
actual.CreatedAt = ixn.Intention.CreatedAt
actual.UpdatedAt = ixn.Intention.UpdatedAt
actual.Hash = ixn.Intention.Hash
ixn.Intention.UpdatePrecedence()
assert.Equal(ixn.Intention, actual)
}
}
// Test apply with delete and a default deny ACL
func TestIntentionApply_aclDelete(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
c.ACLDefaultPolicy = "deny"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Create an ACL with write permissions
var token string
{
var rules = `
service "foo" {
policy = "deny"
intentions = "write"
}`
req := structs.ACLRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.ACLSet,
ACL: structs.ACL{
Name: "User token",
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
Type: structs.ACLTokenTypeClient,
Rules: rules,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "ACL.Apply", &req, &token))
}
// Setup a basic record to create
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: structs.TestIntention(t),
}
ixn.Intention.DestinationName = "foobar"
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = token
// Create
var reply string
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
// Try to do a delete with no token; this should get rejected.
ixn.Op = structs.IntentionOpDelete
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = ""
err := msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply)
assert.True(acl.IsErrPermissionDenied(err))
// Try again with the original token. This should go through.
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = token
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
// Verify it is gone
{
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
IntentionID: ixn.Intention.ID,
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
err := msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Get", req, &resp)
assert.NotNil(err)
assert.Contains(err.Error(), ErrIntentionNotFound.Error())
}
}
// Test apply with update and a default deny ACL
func TestIntentionApply_aclUpdate(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
c.ACLDefaultPolicy = "deny"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Create an ACL with write permissions
var token string
{
var rules = `
service "foo" {
policy = "deny"
intentions = "write"
}`
req := structs.ACLRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.ACLSet,
ACL: structs.ACL{
Name: "User token",
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
Type: structs.ACLTokenTypeClient,
Rules: rules,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "ACL.Apply", &req, &token))
}
// Setup a basic record to create
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: structs.TestIntention(t),
}
ixn.Intention.DestinationName = "foobar"
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = token
// Create
var reply string
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
// Try to do an update without a token; this should get rejected.
ixn.Op = structs.IntentionOpUpdate
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = ""
err := msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply)
assert.True(acl.IsErrPermissionDenied(err))
// Try again with the original token; this should go through.
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = token
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
}
// Test apply with a management token
func TestIntentionApply_aclManagement(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
c.ACLDefaultPolicy = "deny"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Setup a basic record to create
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: structs.TestIntention(t),
}
ixn.Intention.DestinationName = "foobar"
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = "root"
// Create
var reply string
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
// Update
ixn.Op = structs.IntentionOpUpdate
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
// Delete
ixn.Op = structs.IntentionOpDelete
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
}
// Test update changing the name where an ACL won't allow it
func TestIntentionApply_aclUpdateChange(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
c.ACLDefaultPolicy = "deny"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Create an ACL with write permissions
var token string
{
var rules = `
service "foo" {
policy = "deny"
intentions = "write"
}`
req := structs.ACLRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.ACLSet,
ACL: structs.ACL{
Name: "User token",
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
Type: structs.ACLTokenTypeClient,
Rules: rules,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "ACL.Apply", &req, &token))
}
// Setup a basic record to create
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: structs.TestIntention(t),
}
ixn.Intention.DestinationName = "bar"
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = "root"
// Create
var reply string
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
// Try to do an update without a token; this should get rejected.
ixn.Op = structs.IntentionOpUpdate
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
ixn.Intention.DestinationName = "foo"
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = token
err := msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply)
assert.True(acl.IsErrPermissionDenied(err))
}
2018-03-04 19:53:52 +00:00
// Test reading with ACLs
func TestIntentionGet_acl(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
2018-03-04 19:53:52 +00:00
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
c.ACLsEnabled = true
2018-03-04 19:53:52 +00:00
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
c.ACLDefaultPolicy = "deny"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Create an ACL with service write permissions. This will grant
// intentions read.
var token string
{
var rules = `
service "foo" {
policy = "write"
}`
req := structs.ACLRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.ACLSet,
ACL: structs.ACL{
Name: "User token",
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
Type: structs.ACLTokenTypeClient,
2018-03-04 19:53:52 +00:00
Rules: rules,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "ACL.Apply", &req, &token))
2018-03-04 19:53:52 +00:00
}
// Setup a basic record to create
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: structs.TestIntention(t),
}
ixn.Intention.DestinationName = "foobar"
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = "root"
// Create
var reply string
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
2018-03-04 19:53:52 +00:00
ixn.Intention.ID = reply
// Read without token should be error
{
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
IntentionID: ixn.Intention.ID,
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
err := msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Get", req, &resp)
assert.True(acl.IsErrPermissionDenied(err))
assert.Len(resp.Intentions, 0)
2018-03-04 19:53:52 +00:00
}
// Read with token should work
{
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
IntentionID: ixn.Intention.ID,
QueryOptions: structs.QueryOptions{Token: token},
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Get", req, &resp))
assert.Len(resp.Intentions, 1)
2018-03-04 19:53:52 +00:00
}
}
func TestIntentionList(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServer(t)
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Test with no intentions inserted yet
{
req := &structs.DCSpecificRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.List", req, &resp))
assert.NotNil(resp.Intentions)
assert.Len(resp.Intentions, 0)
}
}
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
// Test listing with ACLs
func TestIntentionList_acl(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
c.ACLsEnabled = true
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
c.ACLDefaultPolicy = "deny"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Create an ACL with service write permissions. This will grant
// intentions read.
var token string
{
var rules = `
service "foo" {
policy = "write"
}`
req := structs.ACLRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.ACLSet,
ACL: structs.ACL{
Name: "User token",
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
Type: structs.ACLTokenTypeClient,
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
Rules: rules,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "ACL.Apply", &req, &token))
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
}
// Create a few records
for _, name := range []string{"foobar", "bar", "baz"} {
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: structs.TestIntention(t),
}
ixn.Intention.DestinationName = name
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = "root"
// Create
var reply string
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
}
// Test with no token
{
req := &structs.DCSpecificRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.List", req, &resp))
assert.Len(resp.Intentions, 0)
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
}
// Test with management token
{
req := &structs.DCSpecificRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
QueryOptions: structs.QueryOptions{Token: "root"},
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.List", req, &resp))
assert.Len(resp.Intentions, 3)
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
}
// Test with user token
{
req := &structs.DCSpecificRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
QueryOptions: structs.QueryOptions{Token: token},
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentions
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.List", req, &resp))
assert.Len(resp.Intentions, 1)
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
}
}
// Test basic matching. We don't need to exhaustively test inputs since this
// is tested in the agent/consul/state package.
func TestIntentionMatch_good(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServer(t)
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Create some records
{
insert := [][]string{
{"foo", "*", "foo", "*"},
{"foo", "*", "foo", "bar"},
{"foo", "*", "foo", "baz"}, // shouldn't match
{"foo", "*", "bar", "bar"}, // shouldn't match
{"foo", "*", "bar", "*"}, // shouldn't match
{"foo", "*", "*", "*"},
{"bar", "*", "foo", "bar"}, // duplicate destination different source
}
for _, v := range insert {
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: &structs.Intention{
SourceNS: v[0],
SourceName: v[1],
DestinationNS: v[2],
DestinationName: v[3],
2018-03-03 17:43:37 +00:00
Action: structs.IntentionActionAllow,
},
}
// Create
var reply string
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
}
}
// Match
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Match: &structs.IntentionQueryMatch{
Type: structs.IntentionMatchDestination,
Entries: []structs.IntentionMatchEntry{
{
Namespace: "foo",
Name: "bar",
},
},
},
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentionMatches
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Match", req, &resp))
assert.Len(resp.Matches, 1)
expected := [][]string{
{"bar", "*", "foo", "bar"},
{"foo", "*", "foo", "bar"},
{"foo", "*", "foo", "*"},
{"foo", "*", "*", "*"},
}
var actual [][]string
for _, ixn := range resp.Matches[0] {
actual = append(actual, []string{
ixn.SourceNS,
ixn.SourceName,
ixn.DestinationNS,
ixn.DestinationName,
})
}
assert.Equal(expected, actual)
}
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
// Test matching with ACLs
func TestIntentionMatch_acl(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
assert := assert.New(t)
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
c.ACLsEnabled = true
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
c.ACLDefaultPolicy = "deny"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Create an ACL with service write permissions. This will grant
// intentions read.
var token string
{
var rules = `
service "bar" {
policy = "write"
}`
req := structs.ACLRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.ACLSet,
ACL: structs.ACL{
Name: "User token",
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
Type: structs.ACLTokenTypeClient,
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
Rules: rules,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "ACL.Apply", &req, &token))
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
}
// Create some records
{
insert := [][]string{
{"foo", "*"},
{"foo", "bar"},
{"foo", "baz"}, // shouldn't match
{"bar", "bar"}, // shouldn't match
{"bar", "*"}, // shouldn't match
{"*", "*"},
}
for _, v := range insert {
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: structs.TestIntention(t),
}
ixn.Intention.DestinationNS = v[0]
ixn.Intention.DestinationName = v[1]
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = "root"
// Create
var reply string
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
}
}
// Test with no token
{
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Match: &structs.IntentionQueryMatch{
Type: structs.IntentionMatchDestination,
Entries: []structs.IntentionMatchEntry{
{
Namespace: "foo",
Name: "bar",
},
},
},
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentionMatches
err := msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Match", req, &resp)
assert.True(acl.IsErrPermissionDenied(err))
assert.Len(resp.Matches, 0)
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
}
// Test with proper token
{
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Match: &structs.IntentionQueryMatch{
Type: structs.IntentionMatchDestination,
Entries: []structs.IntentionMatchEntry{
{
Namespace: "foo",
Name: "bar",
},
},
},
QueryOptions: structs.QueryOptions{Token: token},
}
var resp structs.IndexedIntentionMatches
assert.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Match", req, &resp))
assert.Len(resp.Matches, 1)
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
expected := [][]string{{"foo", "bar"}, {"foo", "*"}, {"*", "*"}}
var actual [][]string
for _, ixn := range resp.Matches[0] {
actual = append(actual, []string{ixn.DestinationNS, ixn.DestinationName})
}
assert.Equal(expected, actual)
2018-03-05 02:32:28 +00:00
}
}
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
// Test the Check method defaults to allow with no ACL set.
func TestIntentionCheck_defaultNoACL(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
require := require.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServer(t)
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Test
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
Check: &structs.IntentionQueryCheck{
SourceNS: "foo",
SourceName: "bar",
DestinationNS: "foo",
DestinationName: "qux",
SourceType: structs.IntentionSourceConsul,
},
}
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
var resp structs.IntentionQueryCheckResponse
require.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Check", req, &resp))
require.True(resp.Allowed)
}
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
// Test the Check method defaults to deny with whitelist ACLs.
func TestIntentionCheck_defaultACLDeny(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
require := require.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
c.ACLDefaultPolicy = "deny"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
// Check
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
Check: &structs.IntentionQueryCheck{
SourceNS: "foo",
SourceName: "bar",
DestinationNS: "foo",
DestinationName: "qux",
SourceType: structs.IntentionSourceConsul,
},
}
req.Token = "root"
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
var resp structs.IntentionQueryCheckResponse
require.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Check", req, &resp))
require.False(resp.Allowed)
}
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
// Test the Check method defaults to deny with blacklist ACLs.
func TestIntentionCheck_defaultACLAllow(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
require := require.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
c.ACLDefaultPolicy = "allow"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
// Check
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
Check: &structs.IntentionQueryCheck{
SourceNS: "foo",
SourceName: "bar",
DestinationNS: "foo",
DestinationName: "qux",
SourceType: structs.IntentionSourceConsul,
},
}
req.Token = "root"
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
var resp structs.IntentionQueryCheckResponse
require.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Check", req, &resp))
require.True(resp.Allowed)
}
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
// Test the Check method requires service:read permission.
func TestIntentionCheck_aclDeny(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
require := require.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
c.ACLDefaultPolicy = "deny"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Create an ACL with service read permissions. This will grant permission.
var token string
{
var rules = `
service "bar" {
policy = "read"
}`
req := structs.ACLRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.ACLSet,
ACL: structs.ACL{
Name: "User token",
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
Type: structs.ACLTokenTypeClient,
Rules: rules,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
require.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "ACL.Apply", &req, &token))
}
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
// Check
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
Check: &structs.IntentionQueryCheck{
SourceNS: "foo",
SourceName: "qux",
DestinationNS: "foo",
DestinationName: "baz",
SourceType: structs.IntentionSourceConsul,
},
}
req.Token = token
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
var resp structs.IntentionQueryCheckResponse
err := msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Check", req, &resp)
require.True(acl.IsErrPermissionDenied(err))
}
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
// Test the Check method returns allow/deny properly.
func TestIntentionCheck_match(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
require := require.New(t)
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
c.ACLDefaultPolicy = "deny"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
codec := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer codec.Close()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
// Create an ACL with service read permissions. This will grant permission.
var token string
{
var rules = `
service "bar" {
policy = "read"
}`
req := structs.ACLRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.ACLSet,
ACL: structs.ACL{
Name: "User token",
New ACLs (#4791) This PR is almost a complete rewrite of the ACL system within Consul. It brings the features more in line with other HashiCorp products. Obviously there is quite a bit left to do here but most of it is related docs, testing and finishing the last few commands in the CLI. I will update the PR description and check off the todos as I finish them over the next few days/week. Description At a high level this PR is mainly to split ACL tokens from Policies and to split the concepts of Authorization from Identities. A lot of this PR is mostly just to support CRUD operations on ACLTokens and ACLPolicies. These in and of themselves are not particularly interesting. The bigger conceptual changes are in how tokens get resolved, how backwards compatibility is handled and the separation of policy from identity which could lead the way to allowing for alternative identity providers. On the surface and with a new cluster the ACL system will look very similar to that of Nomads. Both have tokens and policies. Both have local tokens. The ACL management APIs for both are very similar. I even ripped off Nomad's ACL bootstrap resetting procedure. There are a few key differences though. Nomad requires token and policy replication where Consul only requires policy replication with token replication being opt-in. In Consul local tokens only work with token replication being enabled though. All policies in Nomad are globally applicable. In Consul all policies are stored and replicated globally but can be scoped to a subset of the datacenters. This allows for more granular access management. Unlike Nomad, Consul has legacy baggage in the form of the original ACL system. The ramifications of this are: A server running the new system must still support other clients using the legacy system. A client running the new system must be able to use the legacy RPCs when the servers in its datacenter are running the legacy system. The primary ACL DC's servers running in legacy mode needs to be a gate that keeps everything else in the entire multi-DC cluster running in legacy mode. So not only does this PR implement the new ACL system but has a legacy mode built in for when the cluster isn't ready for new ACLs. Also detecting that new ACLs can be used is automatic and requires no configuration on the part of administrators. This process is detailed more in the "Transitioning from Legacy to New ACL Mode" section below.
2018-10-19 16:04:07 +00:00
Type: structs.ACLTokenTypeClient,
Rules: rules,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
require.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "ACL.Apply", &req, &token))
}
// Create some intentions
{
insert := [][]string{
{"foo", "*", "foo", "*"},
{"foo", "*", "foo", "bar"},
{"bar", "*", "foo", "bar"}, // duplicate destination different source
}
for _, v := range insert {
ixn := structs.IntentionRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Op: structs.IntentionOpCreate,
Intention: &structs.Intention{
SourceNS: v[0],
SourceName: v[1],
DestinationNS: v[2],
DestinationName: v[3],
Action: structs.IntentionActionAllow,
},
}
ixn.WriteRequest.Token = "root"
// Create
var reply string
require.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Apply", &ixn, &reply))
}
}
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
// Check
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
Check: &structs.IntentionQueryCheck{
SourceNS: "foo",
SourceName: "qux",
DestinationNS: "foo",
DestinationName: "bar",
SourceType: structs.IntentionSourceConsul,
},
}
req.Token = token
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
var resp structs.IntentionQueryCheckResponse
require.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Check", req, &resp))
require.True(resp.Allowed)
// Test no match for sanity
{
req := &structs.IntentionQueryRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
Check: &structs.IntentionQueryCheck{
SourceNS: "baz",
SourceName: "qux",
DestinationNS: "foo",
DestinationName: "bar",
SourceType: structs.IntentionSourceConsul,
},
}
req.Token = token
2018-05-11 16:19:22 +00:00
var resp structs.IntentionQueryCheckResponse
require.Nil(msgpackrpc.CallWithCodec(codec, "Intention.Check", req, &resp))
require.False(resp.Allowed)
}
}