Upcoming work to instrument the rate of RPC requests by consumer (and eventually
rate limit) requires that we thread the `RPCContext` through all RPC
handlers so that we can access the underlying connection. This changeset adds
the context to everywhere we intend to initially support it and intentionally
excludes streaming RPCs and client RPCs.
To improve the ergonomics of adding the context everywhere its needed and to
clarify the requirements of dynamic vs static handlers, I've also done a good
bit of refactoring here:
* canonicalized the RPC handler fields so they're as close to identical as
possible without introducing unused fields (i.e. I didn't add loggers if the
handler doesn't use them already).
* canonicalized the imports in the handler files.
* added a `NewExampleEndpoint` function for each handler that ensures we're
constructing the handlers with the required arguments.
* reordered the registration in server.go to match the order of the files (to
make it easier to see if we've missed one), and added a bunch of commentary
there as to what the difference between static and dynamic handlers is.
PR #11956 implemented a new mTLS RPC check to validate the role of the
certificate used in the request, but further testing revealed two flaws:
1. client-only endpoints did not accept server certificates so the
request would fail when forwarded from one server to another.
2. the certificate was being checked after the request was forwarded,
so the check would happen over the server certificate, not the
actual source.
This commit checks for the desired mTLS level, where the client level
accepts both, a server or a client certificate. It also validates the
cercertificate before the request is forwarded.
The Plan.Submit endpoint assumed PlanRequest.Plan was never nil. While
there is no evidence it ever has been nil, we should not panic if a nil
plan is ever submitted because that would crash the leader.
hashicorp-copywrite[bot]