Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8224 report required permissions when authorization fails #8314

Merged
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions contrib/auth/acl/service.go
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -895,8 +895,8 @@ func (s *AuthService) Authorize(ctx context.Context, req *auth.AuthorizationRequ
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}

allowed := auth.CheckPermissions(ctx, req.RequiredPermissions, req.Username, policies)
perm := &auth.MissingPermissions{}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Going back to prev question - what are you doing with perm after auth.CheckPermissions ? I don't see it being used.

allowed := auth.CheckPermissions(ctx, req.RequiredPermissions, req.Username, policies, perm)

if allowed != auth.CheckAllow {
return &auth.AuthorizationResponse{
Expand Down
9 changes: 5 additions & 4 deletions esti/auth_test.go
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ import (
"context"
"net/http"
"slices"
"strings"
"testing"
"time"

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -234,7 +235,7 @@ func TestCreateRepo_Unauthorized(t *testing.T) {
})
require.NoError(t, err)
require.NotNil(t, resp.JSON401)
if resp.JSON401.Message != auth.ErrInsufficientPermissions.Error() {
if !strings.Contains(resp.JSON401.Message, auth.ErrInsufficientPermissions.Error()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we test here (and below) that we got an expected value? Obviously doing so makes sense only after we finalize the message contents. So it is fine to open an issue to improve these checks in this test file.

t.Fatalf("expected error message %q, got %q", auth.ErrInsufficientPermissions.Error(), resp.JSON401.Message)
}
}
Expand All @@ -255,15 +256,15 @@ func TestRepoMetadata_Unauthorized(t *testing.T) {
})
require.NoError(t, err)
require.NotNil(t, resp.JSON401)
if resp.JSON401.Message != auth.ErrInsufficientPermissions.Error() {
if !strings.Contains(resp.JSON401.Message, auth.ErrInsufficientPermissions.Error()) {
t.Errorf("expected error message %q, got %q", auth.ErrInsufficientPermissions.Error(), resp.JSON401.Message)
}
})
t.Run("delete", func(t *testing.T) {
resp, err := clt.DeleteRepositoryMetadataWithResponse(ctx, repo, apigen.DeleteRepositoryMetadataJSONRequestBody{Keys: []string{"foo"}})
require.NoError(t, err)
require.NotNil(t, resp.JSON401)
if resp.JSON401.Message != auth.ErrInsufficientPermissions.Error() {
if !strings.Contains(resp.JSON401.Message, auth.ErrInsufficientPermissions.Error()) {
t.Errorf("expected error message %q, got %q", auth.ErrInsufficientPermissions.Error(), resp.JSON401.Message)
}
})
Expand All @@ -272,7 +273,7 @@ func TestRepoMetadata_Unauthorized(t *testing.T) {
resp, err := clt.GetRepositoryMetadataWithResponse(ctx, repo)
require.NoError(t, err)
require.NotNil(t, resp.JSON401)
if resp.JSON401.Message != auth.ErrInsufficientPermissions.Error() {
if !strings.Contains(resp.JSON401.Message, auth.ErrInsufficientPermissions.Error()) {
t.Errorf("expected error message %q, got %q", auth.ErrInsufficientPermissions.Error(), resp.JSON401.Message)
}
})
Expand Down
151 changes: 151 additions & 0 deletions pkg/api/controller_test.go
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -34,11 +34,13 @@ import (
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/api/apigen"
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/api/apiutil"
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/auth"
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/auth/model"
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/block"
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/catalog"
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/config"
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/graveler"
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/httputil"
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/permissions"
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/stats"
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/testutil"
"github.com/treeverse/lakefs/pkg/upload"
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -5355,6 +5357,155 @@ func TestController_CreateCommitRecord(t *testing.T) {
})
}

func TestCheckPermissions_UnpermittedRequests(t *testing.T) {
ctx := context.Background()
testCases := []struct {
name string
node permissions.Node
username string
policies []*model.Policy
expected string
}{
{
name: "deny single action",
node: permissions.Node{
Type: permissions.NodeTypeNode,
Permission: permissions.Permission{
Action: "fs:DeleteRepository",
Resource: "arn:lakefs:fs:::repository/repo1",
},
},
username: "user1",
policies: []*model.Policy{
{
Statement: []model.Statement{
{
Action: []string{"fs:DeleteRepository"},
Resource: "arn:lakefs:fs:::repository/repo1",
Effect: model.StatementEffectDeny,
},
},
},
},
expected: "denied permission to fs:DeleteRepository",
}, /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
{
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please avoid adding filler comments. They are pleasant for different people at different widths, they are never consistent, and they end up not appearing everywhere.

Suggested change
}, /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
{
}, {

name: "deny multiple actions, one concerning the request",
node: permissions.Node{
Type: permissions.NodeTypeNode,
Permission: permissions.Permission{
Action: "fs:DeleteRepository",
Resource: "arn:lakefs:fs:::repository/repo1",
},
},
username: "user1",
policies: []*model.Policy{
{
Statement: []model.Statement{
{
Action: []string{"fs:DeleteRepository", "fs:CreateRepository"},
Resource: "arn:lakefs:fs:::repository/repo1",
Effect: model.StatementEffectDeny,
},
},
},
},
expected: "denied permission to fs:DeleteRepository",
}, /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
{
name: "neutral action",
node: permissions.Node{
Type: permissions.NodeTypeNode,
Permission: permissions.Permission{
Action: "fs:ReadRepository",
Resource: "arn:lakefs:fs:::repository/repo1",
},
},
username: "user1",
policies: []*model.Policy{
{
Statement: []model.Statement{
{
Action: []string{"fs:DeleteRepository"},
Resource: "arn:lakefs:fs:::repository/repo1",
Effect: model.StatementEffectDeny,
},
},
},
},
expected: "missing permission to fs:ReadRepository",
}, /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
{
name: "nodeAnd no policy, returns first missing one",
node: permissions.Node{
Type: permissions.NodeTypeAnd,
Nodes: []permissions.Node{
{
Type: permissions.NodeTypeNode,
Permission: permissions.Permission{
Action: "fs:CreateRepository",
Resource: "*",
},
},
{
Type: permissions.NodeTypeNode,
Permission: permissions.Permission{
Action: "fs:AttachStorageNamespace",
Resource: "*",
},
},
},
},
username: "user1",
expected: "missing permission to fs:CreateRepository",
},
{
name: "nodeAnd one policy, returns first missing policy",
node: permissions.Node{
Type: permissions.NodeTypeAnd,
Nodes: []permissions.Node{
{
Type: permissions.NodeTypeNode,
Permission: permissions.Permission{
Action: "fs:CreateRepository",
Resource: "*",
},
},
{
Type: permissions.NodeTypeNode,
Permission: permissions.Permission{
Action: "fs:AttachStorageNamespace",
Resource: "*",
},
},
},
},
username: "user1",
policies: []*model.Policy{
{
Statement: []model.Statement{
{
Action: []string{"fs:CreateRepository"},
Resource: "*",
Effect: model.StatementEffectAllow,
},
},
},
},
expected: "missing permission to fs:AttachStorageNamespace",
},
}
for _, tc := range testCases {
t.Run(tc.name, func(t *testing.T) {
perm := &auth.MissingPermissions{}
result := auth.CheckPermissions(ctx, tc.node, tc.username, tc.policies, perm)
fmt.Println("expected:\n" + tc.expected)
fmt.Println("got:\n" + perm.String())
fmt.Println(result)
require.Equal(t, tc.expected, perm.String())
})
}
}
func TestController_CreatePullRequest(t *testing.T) {
clt, deps := setupClientWithAdmin(t)
ctx := context.Background()
Expand Down
44 changes: 34 additions & 10 deletions pkg/auth/service.go
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -44,12 +44,20 @@ type AuthorizationResponse struct {
Error error
}

type MissingPermissions struct {
// Denied is a list of actions the user was denied for the attempt.
Denied []string
// Unauthorized is a list of actions the user did not have for the attempt.
Unauthorized []string
}

// CheckResult - the final result for the authorization is accepted only if it's CheckAllow
type CheckResult int

const (
InvalidUserID = ""
MaxPage = 1000
UserNotAllowed = "not allowed"
InvalidUserID = ""
MaxPage = 1000
// CheckAllow Permission allowed
CheckAllow CheckResult = iota
// CheckNeutral Permission neither allowed nor denied
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -918,13 +926,13 @@ func (a *APIAuthService) Authorize(ctx context.Context, req *AuthorizationReques
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}

allowed := CheckPermissions(ctx, req.RequiredPermissions, req.Username, policies)
permAudit := &MissingPermissions{}
allowed := CheckPermissions(ctx, req.RequiredPermissions, req.Username, policies, permAudit)

if allowed != CheckAllow {
return &AuthorizationResponse{
Allowed: false,
Error: ErrInsufficientPermissions,
Error: fmt.Errorf("%w: %s", ErrInsufficientPermissions, permAudit.String()),
}, nil
}

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1147,10 +1155,21 @@ func NewAPIAuthServiceWithClient(client ClientWithResponsesInterface, externalPr
}, nil
}

func CheckPermissions(ctx context.Context, node permissions.Node, username string, policies []*model.Policy) CheckResult {
func (n *MissingPermissions) String() string {
if len(n.Denied) != 0 {
return fmt.Sprintf("denied permission to %s", strings.Join(n.Denied, ","))
}
if len(n.Unauthorized) != 0 {
return fmt.Sprintf("missing permission to %s", strings.Join(n.Unauthorized, ","))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

l.935 will cause a message that says "insufficient permissions: missing permission to ...". That's a bit wordy, so perhaps

Suggested change
return fmt.Sprintf("missing permission to %s", strings.Join(n.Unauthorized, ","))
return fmt.Sprintf("not allowed to %s", strings.Join(n.Unauthorized, ","))

An added benefit is that it uses the same word "allow" from the policy language.

}
return UserNotAllowed
}

func CheckPermissions(ctx context.Context, node permissions.Node, username string, policies []*model.Policy, permAudit *MissingPermissions) CheckResult {
allowed := CheckNeutral
switch node.Type {
case permissions.NodeTypeNode:
hasPermission := false
// check whether the permission is allowed, denied or natural (not allowed and not denied)
for _, policy := range policies {
for _, stmt := range policy.Statement {
Expand All @@ -1165,21 +1184,26 @@ func CheckPermissions(ctx context.Context, node permissions.Node, username strin

if stmt.Effect == model.StatementEffectDeny {
// this is a "Deny" and it takes precedence
permAudit.Denied = append(permAudit.Denied, action)
return CheckDeny
} else {
hasPermission = true
allowed = CheckAllow
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
} else {
hasPermission = true
allowed = CheckAllow
hasPermission = true
allowed = CheckAllow

is closer to the previous version.

We prefer to use an "early return" style: errors return immediately - like l. 1188 does; successes keep going with no "else" and no need to indent.

}

allowed = CheckAllow
}
}
}
if !hasPermission {
permAudit.Unauthorized = append(permAudit.Unauthorized, node.Permission.Action)
}

case permissions.NodeTypeOr:
// returns:
// Allowed - at least one of the permissions is allowed and no one is denied
// Denied - one of the permissions is Deny
// Natural - otherwise
for _, node := range node.Nodes {
result := CheckPermissions(ctx, node, username, policies)
result := CheckPermissions(ctx, node, username, policies, permAudit)
if result == CheckDeny {
return CheckDeny
}
Expand All @@ -1194,7 +1218,7 @@ func CheckPermissions(ctx context.Context, node permissions.Node, username strin
// Denied - one of the permissions is Deny
// Natural - otherwise
for _, node := range node.Nodes {
result := CheckPermissions(ctx, node, username, policies)
result := CheckPermissions(ctx, node, username, policies, permAudit)
if result == CheckNeutral || result == CheckDeny {
return result
}
Expand Down
Loading