open-consul/agent/consul/acl_replication_test.go

987 lines
30 KiB
Go
Raw Normal View History

package consul
import (
"fmt"
2016-08-04 23:33:40 +00:00
"os"
"strconv"
"testing"
"time"
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
"github.com/hashicorp/consul/acl"
"github.com/hashicorp/consul/agent/structs"
ACL Token Persistence and Reloading (#5328) This PR adds two features which will be useful for operators when ACLs are in use. 1. Tokens set in configuration files are now reloadable. 2. If `acl.enable_token_persistence` is set to `true` in the configuration, tokens set via the `v1/agent/token` endpoint are now persisted to disk and loaded when the agent starts (or during configuration reload) Note that token persistence is opt-in so our users who do not want tokens on the local disk will see no change. Some other secondary changes: * Refactored a bunch of places where the replication token is retrieved from the token store. This token isn't just for replicating ACLs and now it is named accordingly. * Allowed better paths in the `v1/agent/token/` API. Instead of paths like: `v1/agent/token/acl_replication_token` the path can now be just `v1/agent/token/replication`. The old paths remain to be valid. * Added a couple new API functions to set tokens via the new paths. Deprecated the old ones and pointed to the new names. The names are also generally better and don't imply that what you are setting is for ACLs but rather are setting ACL tokens. There is a minor semantic difference there especially for the replication token as again, its no longer used only for ACL token/policy replication. The new functions will detect 404s and fallback to using the older token paths when talking to pre-1.4.3 agents. * Docs updated to reflect the API additions and to show using the new endpoints. * Updated the ACL CLI set-agent-tokens command to use the non-deprecated APIs.
2019-02-27 19:28:31 +00:00
tokenStore "github.com/hashicorp/consul/agent/token"
"github.com/hashicorp/consul/sdk/testutil/retry"
"github.com/hashicorp/consul/testrpc"
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
"github.com/stretchr/testify/require"
)
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
func TestACLReplication_diffACLPolicies(t *testing.T) {
diffACLPolicies := func(local structs.ACLPolicies, remote structs.ACLPolicyListStubs, lastRemoteIndex uint64) ([]string, []string) {
tr := &aclPolicyReplicator{local: local, remote: remote}
res := diffACLType(tr, lastRemoteIndex)
return res.LocalDeletes, res.LocalUpserts
}
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
local := structs.ACLPolicies{
&structs.ACLPolicy{
ID: "44ef9aec-7654-4401-901b-4d4a8b3c80fc",
Name: "policy1",
Description: "policy1 - already in sync",
Rules: `acl = "read"`,
Syntax: acl.SyntaxCurrent,
Datacenters: nil,
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
RaftIndex: structs.RaftIndex{CreateIndex: 1, ModifyIndex: 2},
},
&structs.ACLPolicy{
ID: "8ea41efb-8519-4091-bc91-c42da0cda9ae",
Name: "policy2",
Description: "policy2 - updated but not changed",
Rules: `acl = "read"`,
Syntax: acl.SyntaxCurrent,
Datacenters: nil,
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
RaftIndex: structs.RaftIndex{CreateIndex: 1, ModifyIndex: 25},
},
&structs.ACLPolicy{
ID: "539f1cb6-40aa-464f-ae66-a900d26bc1b2",
Name: "policy3",
Description: "policy3 - updated and changed",
Rules: `acl = "read"`,
Syntax: acl.SyntaxCurrent,
Datacenters: nil,
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
RaftIndex: structs.RaftIndex{CreateIndex: 1, ModifyIndex: 25},
},
&structs.ACLPolicy{
ID: "e9d33298-6490-4466-99cb-ba93af64fa76",
Name: "policy4",
Description: "policy4 - needs deleting",
Rules: `acl = "read"`,
Syntax: acl.SyntaxCurrent,
Datacenters: nil,
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
RaftIndex: structs.RaftIndex{CreateIndex: 1, ModifyIndex: 25},
},
}
remote := structs.ACLPolicyListStubs{
&structs.ACLPolicyListStub{
ID: "44ef9aec-7654-4401-901b-4d4a8b3c80fc",
Name: "policy1",
Description: "policy1 - already in sync",
Datacenters: nil,
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
CreateIndex: 1,
ModifyIndex: 2,
},
&structs.ACLPolicyListStub{
ID: "8ea41efb-8519-4091-bc91-c42da0cda9ae",
Name: "policy2",
Description: "policy2 - updated but not changed",
Datacenters: nil,
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
CreateIndex: 1,
ModifyIndex: 50,
},
&structs.ACLPolicyListStub{
ID: "539f1cb6-40aa-464f-ae66-a900d26bc1b2",
Name: "policy3",
Description: "policy3 - updated and changed",
Datacenters: nil,
Hash: []byte{5, 6, 7, 8},
CreateIndex: 1,
ModifyIndex: 50,
},
&structs.ACLPolicyListStub{
ID: "c6e8fffd-cbd9-4ecd-99fe-ab2f200c7926",
Name: "policy5",
Description: "policy5 - needs adding",
Datacenters: nil,
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
CreateIndex: 1,
ModifyIndex: 50,
},
}
// Do the full diff. This full exercises the main body of the loop
deletions, updates := diffACLPolicies(local, remote, 28)
require.Len(t, updates, 2)
require.ElementsMatch(t, updates, []string{
"c6e8fffd-cbd9-4ecd-99fe-ab2f200c7926",
"539f1cb6-40aa-464f-ae66-a900d26bc1b2"})
require.Len(t, deletions, 1)
require.Equal(t, "e9d33298-6490-4466-99cb-ba93af64fa76", deletions[0])
deletions, updates = diffACLPolicies(local, nil, 28)
require.Len(t, updates, 0)
require.Len(t, deletions, 4)
require.ElementsMatch(t, deletions, []string{
"44ef9aec-7654-4401-901b-4d4a8b3c80fc",
"8ea41efb-8519-4091-bc91-c42da0cda9ae",
"539f1cb6-40aa-464f-ae66-a900d26bc1b2",
"e9d33298-6490-4466-99cb-ba93af64fa76"})
deletions, updates = diffACLPolicies(nil, remote, 28)
require.Len(t, deletions, 0)
require.Len(t, updates, 4)
require.ElementsMatch(t, updates, []string{
"44ef9aec-7654-4401-901b-4d4a8b3c80fc",
"8ea41efb-8519-4091-bc91-c42da0cda9ae",
"539f1cb6-40aa-464f-ae66-a900d26bc1b2",
"c6e8fffd-cbd9-4ecd-99fe-ab2f200c7926"})
}
func TestACLReplication_diffACLTokens(t *testing.T) {
diffACLTokens := func(
local structs.ACLTokens,
remote structs.ACLTokenListStubs,
lastRemoteIndex uint64,
) itemDiffResults {
tr := &aclTokenReplicator{local: local, remote: remote}
return diffACLType(tr, lastRemoteIndex)
}
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
local := structs.ACLTokens{
// When a just-upgraded (1.3->1.4+) secondary DC is replicating from an
// upgraded primary DC (1.4+), the local state for tokens predating the
// upgrade will lack AccessorIDs.
//
// The primary DC will lazily perform the update to assign AccessorIDs,
// and that new update will come across the wire locally as a new
// insert.
//
// We simulate that scenario here with 'token0' having no AccessorID in
// the secondary (local) DC and having an AccessorID assigned in the
// payload retrieved from the primary (remote) DC.
&structs.ACLToken{
AccessorID: "",
SecretID: "5128289f-c22c-4d32-936e-7662443f1a55",
Description: "token0 - old and not yet upgraded",
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
RaftIndex: structs.RaftIndex{CreateIndex: 1, ModifyIndex: 3},
},
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
&structs.ACLToken{
AccessorID: "44ef9aec-7654-4401-901b-4d4a8b3c80fc",
SecretID: "44ef9aec-7654-4401-901b-4d4a8b3c80fc",
Description: "token1 - already in sync",
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
RaftIndex: structs.RaftIndex{CreateIndex: 1, ModifyIndex: 2},
},
&structs.ACLToken{
AccessorID: "8ea41efb-8519-4091-bc91-c42da0cda9ae",
SecretID: "8ea41efb-8519-4091-bc91-c42da0cda9ae",
Description: "token2 - updated but not changed",
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
RaftIndex: structs.RaftIndex{CreateIndex: 1, ModifyIndex: 25},
},
&structs.ACLToken{
AccessorID: "539f1cb6-40aa-464f-ae66-a900d26bc1b2",
SecretID: "539f1cb6-40aa-464f-ae66-a900d26bc1b2",
Description: "token3 - updated and changed",
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
RaftIndex: structs.RaftIndex{CreateIndex: 1, ModifyIndex: 25},
},
&structs.ACLToken{
AccessorID: "e9d33298-6490-4466-99cb-ba93af64fa76",
SecretID: "e9d33298-6490-4466-99cb-ba93af64fa76",
Description: "token4 - needs deleting",
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
RaftIndex: structs.RaftIndex{CreateIndex: 1, ModifyIndex: 25},
},
}
remote := structs.ACLTokenListStubs{
&structs.ACLTokenListStub{
AccessorID: "72fac6a3-a014-41c8-9cb2-8d9a5e935f3d",
//SecretID: "5128289f-c22c-4d32-936e-7662443f1a55", (formerly)
Description: "token0 - old and not yet upgraded locally",
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
CreateIndex: 1,
ModifyIndex: 3,
},
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
&structs.ACLTokenListStub{
AccessorID: "44ef9aec-7654-4401-901b-4d4a8b3c80fc",
Description: "token1 - already in sync",
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
CreateIndex: 1,
ModifyIndex: 2,
},
&structs.ACLTokenListStub{
AccessorID: "8ea41efb-8519-4091-bc91-c42da0cda9ae",
Description: "token2 - updated but not changed",
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
CreateIndex: 1,
ModifyIndex: 50,
},
&structs.ACLTokenListStub{
AccessorID: "539f1cb6-40aa-464f-ae66-a900d26bc1b2",
Description: "token3 - updated and changed",
Hash: []byte{5, 6, 7, 8},
CreateIndex: 1,
ModifyIndex: 50,
},
&structs.ACLTokenListStub{
AccessorID: "c6e8fffd-cbd9-4ecd-99fe-ab2f200c7926",
Description: "token5 - needs adding",
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
CreateIndex: 1,
ModifyIndex: 50,
},
// When a 1.4+ secondary DC is replicating from a 1.4+ primary DC,
// tokens created using the legacy APIs will not initially have
// AccessorIDs assigned. That assignment is lazy (but in quick
// succession).
//
// The secondary (local) will see these in the api response as a stub
// with "" as the AccessorID.
//
// We simulate that here to verify that the secondary does the right
// thing by skipping them until it sees them with nonempty AccessorIDs.
&structs.ACLTokenListStub{
AccessorID: "",
Description: "token6 - pending async AccessorID assignment",
Hash: []byte{1, 2, 3, 4},
CreateIndex: 51,
ModifyIndex: 51,
},
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
}
// Do the full diff. This full exercises the main body of the loop
t.Run("full-diff", func(t *testing.T) {
res := diffACLTokens(local, remote, 28)
require.Equal(t, 1, res.LocalSkipped)
require.Equal(t, 1, res.RemoteSkipped)
require.Len(t, res.LocalUpserts, 3)
require.ElementsMatch(t, res.LocalUpserts, []string{
"72fac6a3-a014-41c8-9cb2-8d9a5e935f3d",
"c6e8fffd-cbd9-4ecd-99fe-ab2f200c7926",
"539f1cb6-40aa-464f-ae66-a900d26bc1b2"})
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
require.Len(t, res.LocalDeletes, 1)
require.Equal(t, "e9d33298-6490-4466-99cb-ba93af64fa76", res.LocalDeletes[0])
})
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
t.Run("only-local", func(t *testing.T) {
res := diffACLTokens(local, nil, 28)
require.Equal(t, 1, res.LocalSkipped)
require.Equal(t, 0, res.RemoteSkipped)
require.Len(t, res.LocalUpserts, 0)
require.Len(t, res.LocalDeletes, 4)
require.ElementsMatch(t, res.LocalDeletes, []string{
"44ef9aec-7654-4401-901b-4d4a8b3c80fc",
"8ea41efb-8519-4091-bc91-c42da0cda9ae",
"539f1cb6-40aa-464f-ae66-a900d26bc1b2",
"e9d33298-6490-4466-99cb-ba93af64fa76"})
})
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
t.Run("only-remote", func(t *testing.T) {
res := diffACLTokens(nil, remote, 28)
require.Equal(t, 0, res.LocalSkipped)
require.Equal(t, 1, res.RemoteSkipped)
require.Len(t, res.LocalDeletes, 0)
require.Len(t, res.LocalUpserts, 5)
require.ElementsMatch(t, res.LocalUpserts, []string{
"72fac6a3-a014-41c8-9cb2-8d9a5e935f3d",
"44ef9aec-7654-4401-901b-4d4a8b3c80fc",
"8ea41efb-8519-4091-bc91-c42da0cda9ae",
"539f1cb6-40aa-464f-ae66-a900d26bc1b2",
"c6e8fffd-cbd9-4ecd-99fe-ab2f200c7926"})
})
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
}
func TestACLReplication_Tokens(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
client := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer client.Close()
dir2, s2 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.Datacenter = "dc2"
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLTokenReplication = true
c.ACLReplicationRate = 100
c.ACLReplicationBurst = 100
c.ACLReplicationApplyLimit = 1000000
})
ACL Token Persistence and Reloading (#5328) This PR adds two features which will be useful for operators when ACLs are in use. 1. Tokens set in configuration files are now reloadable. 2. If `acl.enable_token_persistence` is set to `true` in the configuration, tokens set via the `v1/agent/token` endpoint are now persisted to disk and loaded when the agent starts (or during configuration reload) Note that token persistence is opt-in so our users who do not want tokens on the local disk will see no change. Some other secondary changes: * Refactored a bunch of places where the replication token is retrieved from the token store. This token isn't just for replicating ACLs and now it is named accordingly. * Allowed better paths in the `v1/agent/token/` API. Instead of paths like: `v1/agent/token/acl_replication_token` the path can now be just `v1/agent/token/replication`. The old paths remain to be valid. * Added a couple new API functions to set tokens via the new paths. Deprecated the old ones and pointed to the new names. The names are also generally better and don't imply that what you are setting is for ACLs but rather are setting ACL tokens. There is a minor semantic difference there especially for the replication token as again, its no longer used only for ACL token/policy replication. The new functions will detect 404s and fallback to using the older token paths when talking to pre-1.4.3 agents. * Docs updated to reflect the API additions and to show using the new endpoints. * Updated the ACL CLI set-agent-tokens command to use the non-deprecated APIs.
2019-02-27 19:28:31 +00:00
s2.tokens.UpdateReplicationToken("root", tokenStore.TokenSourceConfig)
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s2.RPC, "dc2")
defer os.RemoveAll(dir2)
defer s2.Shutdown()
// Try to join.
joinWAN(t, s2, s1)
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc2")
// Wait for legacy acls to be disabled so we are clear that
// legacy replication isn't meddling.
waitForNewACLs(t, s1)
waitForNewACLs(t, s2)
waitForNewACLReplication(t, s2, structs.ACLReplicateTokens)
// Create a bunch of new tokens and policies
var tokens structs.ACLTokens
for i := 0; i < 50; i++ {
arg := structs.ACLTokenSetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
ACLToken: structs.ACLToken{
Description: fmt.Sprintf("token-%d", i),
Policies: []structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
ID: structs.ACLPolicyGlobalManagementID,
},
},
Local: false,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var token structs.ACLToken
require.NoError(t, s1.RPC("ACL.TokenSet", &arg, &token))
tokens = append(tokens, &token)
}
checkSame := func(t *retry.R) {
// only account for global tokens - local tokens shouldn't be replicated
index, remote, err := s1.fsm.State().ACLTokenList(nil, false, true, "", "", "")
require.NoError(t, err)
_, local, err := s2.fsm.State().ACLTokenList(nil, false, true, "", "", "")
require.NoError(t, err)
require.Len(t, local, len(remote))
for i, token := range remote {
require.Equal(t, token.Hash, local[i].Hash)
}
s2.aclReplicationStatusLock.RLock()
status := s2.aclReplicationStatus
s2.aclReplicationStatusLock.RUnlock()
require.True(t, status.Enabled)
require.True(t, status.Running)
require.Equal(t, status.ReplicationType, structs.ACLReplicateTokens)
require.Equal(t, status.ReplicatedTokenIndex, index)
require.Equal(t, status.SourceDatacenter, "dc1")
}
// Wait for the replica to converge.
retry.Run(t, func(r *retry.R) {
checkSame(r)
})
2019-05-21 23:58:37 +00:00
// Wait for s2 global-management policy
retry.Run(t, func(r *retry.R) {
_, policy, err := s2.fsm.State().ACLPolicyGetByID(nil, structs.ACLPolicyGlobalManagementID)
require.NoError(r, err)
2019-07-12 15:52:26 +00:00
require.NotNil(r, policy)
2019-05-21 23:58:37 +00:00
})
// add some local tokens to the secondary DC
// these shouldn't be deleted by replication
for i := 0; i < 50; i++ {
arg := structs.ACLTokenSetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc2",
ACLToken: structs.ACLToken{
Description: fmt.Sprintf("token-%d", i),
Policies: []structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
ID: structs.ACLPolicyGlobalManagementID,
},
},
Local: true,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var token structs.ACLToken
require.NoError(t, s2.RPC("ACL.TokenSet", &arg, &token))
}
// add some local tokens to the primary DC
// these shouldn't be replicated to the secondary DC
for i := 0; i < 50; i++ {
arg := structs.ACLTokenSetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
ACLToken: structs.ACLToken{
Description: fmt.Sprintf("token-%d", i),
Policies: []structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
ID: structs.ACLPolicyGlobalManagementID,
},
},
Local: true,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var token structs.ACLToken
require.NoError(t, s1.RPC("ACL.TokenSet", &arg, &token))
}
// Update those other tokens
for i := 0; i < 50; i++ {
arg := structs.ACLTokenSetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
ACLToken: structs.ACLToken{
AccessorID: tokens[i].AccessorID,
SecretID: tokens[i].SecretID,
Description: fmt.Sprintf("token-%d-modified", i),
Policies: []structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
ID: structs.ACLPolicyGlobalManagementID,
},
},
Local: false,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var token structs.ACLToken
require.NoError(t, s1.RPC("ACL.TokenSet", &arg, &token))
}
// Wait for the replica to converge.
// this time it also verifies the local tokens from the primary were not replicated.
retry.Run(t, func(r *retry.R) {
checkSame(r)
})
// verify dc2 local tokens didn't get blown away
_, local, err := s2.fsm.State().ACLTokenList(nil, true, false, "", "", "")
require.NoError(t, err)
require.Len(t, local, 50)
for _, token := range tokens {
arg := structs.ACLTokenDeleteRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
TokenID: token.AccessorID,
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var dontCare string
require.NoError(t, s1.RPC("ACL.TokenDelete", &arg, &dontCare))
}
// Wait for the replica to converge.
retry.Run(t, func(r *retry.R) {
checkSame(r)
})
}
func TestACLReplication_Policies(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
client := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer client.Close()
dir2, s2 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.Datacenter = "dc2"
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLTokenReplication = false
c.ACLReplicationRate = 100
c.ACLReplicationBurst = 100
c.ACLReplicationApplyLimit = 1000000
})
ACL Token Persistence and Reloading (#5328) This PR adds two features which will be useful for operators when ACLs are in use. 1. Tokens set in configuration files are now reloadable. 2. If `acl.enable_token_persistence` is set to `true` in the configuration, tokens set via the `v1/agent/token` endpoint are now persisted to disk and loaded when the agent starts (or during configuration reload) Note that token persistence is opt-in so our users who do not want tokens on the local disk will see no change. Some other secondary changes: * Refactored a bunch of places where the replication token is retrieved from the token store. This token isn't just for replicating ACLs and now it is named accordingly. * Allowed better paths in the `v1/agent/token/` API. Instead of paths like: `v1/agent/token/acl_replication_token` the path can now be just `v1/agent/token/replication`. The old paths remain to be valid. * Added a couple new API functions to set tokens via the new paths. Deprecated the old ones and pointed to the new names. The names are also generally better and don't imply that what you are setting is for ACLs but rather are setting ACL tokens. There is a minor semantic difference there especially for the replication token as again, its no longer used only for ACL token/policy replication. The new functions will detect 404s and fallback to using the older token paths when talking to pre-1.4.3 agents. * Docs updated to reflect the API additions and to show using the new endpoints. * Updated the ACL CLI set-agent-tokens command to use the non-deprecated APIs.
2019-02-27 19:28:31 +00:00
s2.tokens.UpdateReplicationToken("root", tokenStore.TokenSourceConfig)
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s2.RPC, "dc2")
defer os.RemoveAll(dir2)
defer s2.Shutdown()
// Try to join.
joinWAN(t, s2, s1)
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc2")
// Wait for legacy acls to be disabled so we are clear that
// legacy replication isn't meddling.
waitForNewACLs(t, s1)
waitForNewACLs(t, s2)
waitForNewACLReplication(t, s2, structs.ACLReplicatePolicies)
// Create a bunch of new policies
var policies structs.ACLPolicies
for i := 0; i < 50; i++ {
arg := structs.ACLPolicySetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Policy: structs.ACLPolicy{
Name: fmt.Sprintf("token-%d", i),
Description: fmt.Sprintf("token-%d", i),
Rules: fmt.Sprintf(`service "app-%d" { policy = "read" }`, i),
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var policy structs.ACLPolicy
require.NoError(t, s1.RPC("ACL.PolicySet", &arg, &policy))
policies = append(policies, &policy)
}
checkSame := func(t *retry.R) {
// only account for global tokens - local tokens shouldn't be replicated
index, remote, err := s1.fsm.State().ACLPolicyList(nil)
require.NoError(t, err)
_, local, err := s2.fsm.State().ACLPolicyList(nil)
require.NoError(t, err)
require.Len(t, local, len(remote))
for i, policy := range remote {
require.Equal(t, policy.Hash, local[i].Hash)
}
s2.aclReplicationStatusLock.RLock()
status := s2.aclReplicationStatus
s2.aclReplicationStatusLock.RUnlock()
require.True(t, status.Enabled)
require.True(t, status.Running)
require.Equal(t, status.ReplicationType, structs.ACLReplicatePolicies)
require.Equal(t, status.ReplicatedIndex, index)
require.Equal(t, status.SourceDatacenter, "dc1")
}
// Wait for the replica to converge.
retry.Run(t, func(r *retry.R) {
checkSame(r)
})
// Update those policies
for i := 0; i < 50; i++ {
arg := structs.ACLPolicySetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Policy: structs.ACLPolicy{
ID: policies[i].ID,
Name: fmt.Sprintf("token-%d-modified", i),
Description: fmt.Sprintf("token-%d-modified", i),
Rules: policies[i].Rules,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var policy structs.ACLPolicy
require.NoError(t, s1.RPC("ACL.PolicySet", &arg, &policy))
}
// Wait for the replica to converge.
// this time it also verifies the local tokens from the primary were not replicated.
retry.Run(t, func(r *retry.R) {
checkSame(r)
})
for _, policy := range policies {
arg := structs.ACLPolicyDeleteRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
PolicyID: policy.ID,
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var dontCare string
require.NoError(t, s1.RPC("ACL.PolicyDelete", &arg, &dontCare))
}
// Wait for the replica to converge.
retry.Run(t, func(r *retry.R) {
checkSame(r)
})
}
func TestACLReplication_TokensRedacted(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
client := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer client.Close()
// Create the ACL Write Policy
policyArg := structs.ACLPolicySetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Policy: structs.ACLPolicy{
Name: "token-replication-redacted",
Description: "token-replication-redacted",
Rules: `acl = "write"`,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var policy structs.ACLPolicy
require.NoError(t, s1.RPC("ACL.PolicySet", &policyArg, &policy))
// Create the dc2 replication token
tokenArg := structs.ACLTokenSetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
ACLToken: structs.ACLToken{
Description: "dc2-replication",
Policies: []structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
ID: policy.ID,
},
},
Local: false,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var token structs.ACLToken
require.NoError(t, s1.RPC("ACL.TokenSet", &tokenArg, &token))
dir2, s2 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.Datacenter = "dc2"
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLTokenReplication = true
c.ACLReplicationRate = 100
c.ACLReplicationBurst = 100
c.ACLReplicationApplyLimit = 1000000
})
s2.tokens.UpdateReplicationToken(token.SecretID, tokenStore.TokenSourceConfig)
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s2.RPC, "dc2")
defer os.RemoveAll(dir2)
defer s2.Shutdown()
// Try to join.
joinWAN(t, s2, s1)
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s2.RPC, "dc2")
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s2.RPC, "dc1")
waitForNewACLs(t, s2)
// ensures replication is working ok
retry.Run(t, func(r *retry.R) {
var tokenResp structs.ACLTokenResponse
req := structs.ACLTokenGetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc2",
TokenID: "root",
TokenIDType: structs.ACLTokenSecret,
QueryOptions: structs.QueryOptions{Token: "root"},
}
err := s2.RPC("ACL.TokenRead", &req, &tokenResp)
require.NoError(r, err)
2019-04-30 15:45:36 +00:00
require.NotNil(r, tokenResp.Token)
require.Equal(r, "root", tokenResp.Token.SecretID)
var status structs.ACLReplicationStatus
statusReq := structs.DCSpecificRequest{
Datacenter: "dc2",
}
require.NoError(r, s2.RPC("ACL.ReplicationStatus", &statusReq, &status))
// ensures that tokens are not being synced
require.True(r, status.ReplicatedTokenIndex > 0, "ReplicatedTokenIndex not greater than 0")
})
// modify the replication policy to change to only granting read privileges
policyArg = structs.ACLPolicySetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Policy: structs.ACLPolicy{
ID: policy.ID,
Name: "token-replication-redacted",
Description: "token-replication-redacted",
Rules: `acl = "read"`,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
require.NoError(t, s1.RPC("ACL.PolicySet", &policyArg, &policy))
// Create the another token so that replication will attempt to read it.
tokenArg = structs.ACLTokenSetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
ACLToken: structs.ACLToken{
Description: "management",
Policies: []structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
ID: structs.ACLPolicyGlobalManagementID,
},
},
Local: false,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var token2 structs.ACLToken
// record the time right before we are touching the token
minErrorTime := time.Now()
require.NoError(t, s1.RPC("ACL.TokenSet", &tokenArg, &token2))
retry.Run(t, func(r *retry.R) {
var tokenResp structs.ACLTokenResponse
req := structs.ACLTokenGetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc2",
TokenID: redactedToken,
TokenIDType: structs.ACLTokenSecret,
QueryOptions: structs.QueryOptions{Token: redactedToken},
}
err := s2.RPC("ACL.TokenRead", &req, &tokenResp)
// its not an error for the secret to not be found.
require.NoError(r, err)
require.Nil(r, tokenResp.Token)
var status structs.ACLReplicationStatus
statusReq := structs.DCSpecificRequest{
Datacenter: "dc2",
}
require.NoError(r, s2.RPC("ACL.ReplicationStatus", &statusReq, &status))
// ensures that tokens are not being synced
require.True(r, status.ReplicatedTokenIndex < token2.CreateIndex, "ReplicatedTokenIndex is not less than the token2s create index")
// ensures that token replication is erroring
require.True(r, status.LastError.After(minErrorTime), "Replication LastError not after the minErrorTime")
})
}
func TestACLReplication_AllTypes(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
dir1, s1 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLMasterToken = "root"
})
defer os.RemoveAll(dir1)
defer s1.Shutdown()
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
client := rpcClient(t, s1)
defer client.Close()
dir2, s2 := testServerWithConfig(t, func(c *Config) {
c.Datacenter = "dc2"
c.ACLDatacenter = "dc1"
c.ACLsEnabled = true
c.ACLTokenReplication = true
c.ACLReplicationRate = 100
c.ACLReplicationBurst = 100
c.ACLReplicationApplyLimit = 1000000
})
s2.tokens.UpdateReplicationToken("root", tokenStore.TokenSourceConfig)
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s2.RPC, "dc2")
defer os.RemoveAll(dir2)
defer s2.Shutdown()
// Try to join.
joinWAN(t, s2, s1)
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc1")
testrpc.WaitForLeader(t, s1.RPC, "dc2")
// Wait for legacy acls to be disabled so we are clear that
// legacy replication isn't meddling.
waitForNewACLs(t, s1)
waitForNewACLs(t, s2)
waitForNewACLReplication(t, s2, structs.ACLReplicateTokens)
const (
numItems = 50
numItemsThatAreLocal = 10
)
// Create some data.
policyIDs, roleIDs, tokenIDs := createACLTestData(t, s1, "b1", numItems, numItemsThatAreLocal)
checkSameTokens := func(t *retry.R) {
// only account for global tokens - local tokens shouldn't be replicated
index, remote, err := s1.fsm.State().ACLTokenList(nil, false, true, "", "", "")
require.NoError(t, err)
// Query for all of them, so that we can prove that no globals snuck in.
_, local, err := s2.fsm.State().ACLTokenList(nil, true, true, "", "", "")
require.NoError(t, err)
require.Len(t, remote, len(local))
for i, token := range remote {
require.Equal(t, token.Hash, local[i].Hash)
}
s2.aclReplicationStatusLock.RLock()
status := s2.aclReplicationStatus
s2.aclReplicationStatusLock.RUnlock()
require.True(t, status.Enabled)
require.True(t, status.Running)
require.Equal(t, status.ReplicationType, structs.ACLReplicateTokens)
require.Equal(t, status.ReplicatedTokenIndex, index)
require.Equal(t, status.SourceDatacenter, "dc1")
}
checkSamePolicies := func(t *retry.R) {
index, remote, err := s1.fsm.State().ACLPolicyList(nil)
require.NoError(t, err)
_, local, err := s2.fsm.State().ACLPolicyList(nil)
require.NoError(t, err)
require.Len(t, remote, len(local))
for i, policy := range remote {
require.Equal(t, policy.Hash, local[i].Hash)
}
s2.aclReplicationStatusLock.RLock()
status := s2.aclReplicationStatus
s2.aclReplicationStatusLock.RUnlock()
require.True(t, status.Enabled)
require.True(t, status.Running)
require.Equal(t, status.ReplicationType, structs.ACLReplicateTokens)
require.Equal(t, status.ReplicatedIndex, index)
require.Equal(t, status.SourceDatacenter, "dc1")
}
checkSameRoles := func(t *retry.R) {
index, remote, err := s1.fsm.State().ACLRoleList(nil, "")
require.NoError(t, err)
_, local, err := s2.fsm.State().ACLRoleList(nil, "")
require.NoError(t, err)
require.Len(t, remote, len(local))
for i, role := range remote {
require.Equal(t, role.Hash, local[i].Hash)
}
s2.aclReplicationStatusLock.RLock()
status := s2.aclReplicationStatus
s2.aclReplicationStatusLock.RUnlock()
require.True(t, status.Enabled)
require.True(t, status.Running)
require.Equal(t, status.ReplicationType, structs.ACLReplicateTokens)
require.Equal(t, status.ReplicatedRoleIndex, index)
require.Equal(t, status.SourceDatacenter, "dc1")
}
checkSame := func(t *retry.R) {
checkSameTokens(t)
checkSamePolicies(t)
checkSameRoles(t)
}
// Wait for the replica to converge.
retry.Run(t, func(r *retry.R) {
checkSame(r)
})
// Create additional data to replicate.
_, _, _ = createACLTestData(t, s1, "b2", numItems, numItemsThatAreLocal)
// Wait for the replica to converge.
retry.Run(t, func(r *retry.R) {
checkSame(r)
})
// Delete one piece of each type of data from batch 1.
const itemToDelete = numItems - 1
{
id := tokenIDs[itemToDelete]
arg := structs.ACLTokenDeleteRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
TokenID: id,
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var dontCare string
if err := s1.RPC("ACL.TokenDelete", &arg, &dontCare); err != nil {
t.Fatalf("err: %v", err)
}
}
{
id := roleIDs[itemToDelete]
arg := structs.ACLRoleDeleteRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
RoleID: id,
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var dontCare string
if err := s1.RPC("ACL.RoleDelete", &arg, &dontCare); err != nil {
t.Fatalf("err: %v", err)
}
}
{
id := policyIDs[itemToDelete]
arg := structs.ACLPolicyDeleteRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
PolicyID: id,
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var dontCare string
if err := s1.RPC("ACL.PolicyDelete", &arg, &dontCare); err != nil {
t.Fatalf("err: %v", err)
}
}
// Wait for the replica to converge.
retry.Run(t, func(r *retry.R) {
checkSame(r)
})
}
func createACLTestData(t *testing.T, srv *Server, namePrefix string, numObjects, numItemsThatAreLocal int) (policyIDs, roleIDs, tokenIDs []string) {
require.True(t, numItemsThatAreLocal <= numObjects, 0, "numItemsThatAreLocal <= numObjects")
// Create some policies.
for i := 0; i < numObjects; i++ {
str := strconv.Itoa(i)
arg := structs.ACLPolicySetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Policy: structs.ACLPolicy{
Name: namePrefix + "-policy-" + str,
Description: namePrefix + "-policy " + str,
Rules: testACLPolicyNew,
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var out structs.ACLPolicy
if err := srv.RPC("ACL.PolicySet", &arg, &out); err != nil {
t.Fatalf("err: %v", err)
}
policyIDs = append(policyIDs, out.ID)
}
// Create some roles.
for i := 0; i < numObjects; i++ {
str := strconv.Itoa(i)
arg := structs.ACLRoleSetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
Role: structs.ACLRole{
Name: namePrefix + "-role-" + str,
Description: namePrefix + "-role " + str,
Policies: []structs.ACLRolePolicyLink{
{ID: policyIDs[i]},
},
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var out structs.ACLRole
if err := srv.RPC("ACL.RoleSet", &arg, &out); err != nil {
t.Fatalf("err: %v", err)
}
roleIDs = append(roleIDs, out.ID)
}
// Create a bunch of new tokens.
for i := 0; i < numObjects; i++ {
str := strconv.Itoa(i)
arg := structs.ACLTokenSetRequest{
Datacenter: "dc1",
ACLToken: structs.ACLToken{
Description: namePrefix + "-token " + str,
Policies: []structs.ACLTokenPolicyLink{
{ID: policyIDs[i]},
},
Roles: []structs.ACLTokenRoleLink{
{ID: roleIDs[i]},
},
Local: (i < numItemsThatAreLocal),
},
WriteRequest: structs.WriteRequest{Token: "root"},
}
var out structs.ACLToken
if err := srv.RPC("ACL.TokenSet", &arg, &out); err != nil {
t.Fatalf("err: %v", err)
}
tokenIDs = append(tokenIDs, out.AccessorID)
}
return policyIDs, roleIDs, tokenIDs
}