Page MenuHomePhabricator

[lib][keyserver] Remove ADD_MEMBERS permission from community roots
ClosedPublic

Authored by inka on May 29 2024, 2:01 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F3372540: D12235.diff
Tue, Nov 26, 6:54 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Nov 25, 1:58 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Nov 24, 6:46 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Nov 24, 4:45 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Nov 16, 11:13 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Nov 12, 1:04 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Nov 11, 3:21 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Nov 11, 2:43 AM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

issue: ENG-7792
baseMemberUserSurfacedPermissions is used only in getRolePermissionBlobsForCommunityRoot. userSurfacedPermissions.ADD_MEMBERS permission was parsed by getThreadPermissionBlobFromUserSurfacedPermissions and resulted in two permissions being added to the resultant memberPermissions: add_members and child_open_add_members. We want the permissions for children to stay the same, so we make sure only add_members permission is removed.

But we have to make sure that old clients still get the ADD_MEMBERS permission. This is because otherwise, state check would have found many, many inconsistencies, likely resulting in socket crash loop on prod. So the client needs to get this permission in thread info, but the request to add members should fail[[https://linear.app/comm/issue/ENG-7792/disallow-adding-users-to-community-roots-on-the-keyserver#comment-3c202516 | More datails in discussion]]

Lastly, we should migrate old thread infos on the keyservers and clients. But this is very costly, so it will be done with D12062

Test Plan

Tested new clietns (setting min code version to current code version):
Created a community. Tested that the admin and member cannot add users. Created a subchannel. Checked that both member and admin have the Add members button and checked from the member that it works.

Checked old clients by changing min code version to 999:
Created a new community → it shouldn’t allow adding new users to its root. Checked that the client thinks they can add users (button is visible). Checked that trying to actually add a user results in a server error (invalid_credentials)

Diff Detail

Repository
rCOMM Comm
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

inka requested review of this revision.May 29 2024, 2:18 AM
keyserver/src/fetchers/thread-fetchers.js
295–296 ↗(On Diff #40737)

These will have to be updated to the proper number when we release a new app version. Not yet sure how to enforce that

lib/permissions/thread-permissions.js
232 ↗(On Diff #40737)

This function calculated permissions for members and admins of community roots. There are three types of community roots: COMMUNITY_ROOT, COMMUNITY_ANNOUNCEMENT_ROOT and GENESIS

member permissions are calculated by getThreadPermissionBlobFromUserSurfacedPermissions based on memberUserSurfacedPermissions. So member permissions are changed by updating addMembersPermissions in thread-permission-types.js, which are used by getThreadPermissionBlobFromUserSurfacedPermissions.

admin permissions are specified in this function in baseAdminPermissions. So they are changed directly in this function

322–326 ↗(On Diff #40737)

Because we have to add the ADD_MEMBERS permission back for old clients, but for GENESIS only admin members have it, I opted to keep it in GENESIS at all times.

  1. This greatly simplifies the code in rawThreadInfoFromServerThreadInfo
  2. Before multikeyservers are launched ENG-7134 will be implemented, so secondary keyservers will not have GENESIS. So this is only for the auth keyserver, on which the only admin is Ashoat.
  3. All users are members of the auth keyserver, so the problem we are trying to solve by disallowing adding users to communities doesn't apply to GENESIS
lib/shared/thread-utils.js
600 ↗(On Diff #40737)

Please see this discussion for an explanation why this source is used

inka added reviewers: ashoat, tomek, kamil.

I think this is causing me to be unable to send friend requests...
EDIT: its also happening on master, for two users who din't have a undirected relationship. I will investigate some more
EDIT2: it looks like one of my users had some broken state. this is not happening in general

ashoat requested changes to this revision.May 29 2024, 10:21 AM

This looks good, just one question inline and a request for the Test Plan: can you try to test the state check mechanism?

In particular, here's what I'm thinking:

  1. Create a test user that is a member of some community (not just GENESIS). Make sure that the community has some test chats in it (ideally one private, one public, maybe some sidebars inside)
  2. Compile a release build on master and deploy it to eg. a simulator. Log in as the test user
  3. Update your local keyserver to run on this diff
  4. Confirm that the state check mechanism does not detect any issues
keyserver/src/fetchers/thread-fetchers.js
298–299 ↗(On Diff #40738)

As part of the release process, I check all NEXT_CODE_VERSION and update it to the release I'm about to make

FUTURE_CODE_VERSION isn't checked, and is meant as a stand-in for when somebody wants to land something, but isn't ready for it to be released

Once you're ready for this to be released, you should update this to NEXT_CODE_VERSION

lib/permissions/thread-permissions.js
325 ↗(On Diff #40738)

You justified this change earlier by mentioning "This greatly simplifies the code in rawThreadInfoFromServerThreadInfo". Can you explain this in more detail? I'm wondering what exactly is special about the GENESIS case here

This revision now requires changes to proceed.May 29 2024, 10:21 AM
lib/permissions/thread-permissions.js
325 ↗(On Diff #40738)

Non-admin members don't have a ADD_MEMBERS permission in GENESIS - only the admin. Both non-admin and admin members have this permission in other community roots. So this allows me to not have to check in filterThreadPermissions in rawThreadInfoFromServerThreadInfo whether the permissions I am editing are supposed to be used for admins, or other members.

inka requested review of this revision.EditedJun 3 2024, 5:14 AM

I had trouble getting a release build to connect to my local keyserver, so instead I built a dev app and disconnected from metro.
What I did:

  1. Built the app and run the ks on master
  2. Logged onto a user who is only in GENESIS, create a new community, create secret and open chats, and some threads in this community
  3. Killed metro
  4. Checked out my branch
  5. Logged stateCheckStatus in handleResponsesClientSocketMessage on the keyserver (metro is down so I cannot see client logs)

the value was always { status: 'state_validated' }

keyserver/src/fetchers/thread-fetchers.js
14 ↗(On Diff #40738)

Don't forget to change this when you want this to ship. If you land this with FUTURE_CODE_VERSION and forget to update to NEXT_CODE_VERSION, this work will never ship

lib/permissions/thread-permissions.js
325 ↗(On Diff #40738)

I spent over 30 minutes trying to understand this. I really feel like you could have spent like 5-10min improving your explanation here, and it would have saved me a lot of time.

Concretely: there's no explanation here for why you're leaving admin permissions for GENESIS unchanged. Is it because something breaks if you remove the ADD_MEMBERS permission for GENESIS? Or is it because it only affects my UX (not user-facing) and you wanted to avoid the extra work that would be necessary?

I'm going to assume that it's the latter and accept this, but please think carefully about this feedback. In the future, I'd appreciate it if you could spend more time on your wording and explanations in diff comments. Think about what context I might be missing, and try rewording your comment multiple times.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jun 3 2024, 12:04 PM
keyserver/src/fetchers/thread-fetchers.js
14 ↗(On Diff #40738)

This should be changed when we run migrations in D12062.
I think this code can be landed before we change this to NEXT_CODE_VERSION . It works all right without changing this - clients will get ADD_MEMBERS permission for both old community roots that actually have it, and for new community roots that won't have it. But the UI (changes from next diffs in this stack) will not allow adding the users anyway, so this is not a problem. Once D12062 is landed, clients and keyserver will migrate the data, and then the keyserver should stop sending to the updated clients the ADD_MEMBERS permission. I commented on D12062 to make sure we change this flag in the diff that adds those migrations.

lib/permissions/thread-permissions.js
325 ↗(On Diff #40738)

From your question

You justified this change earlier by mentioning "This greatly simplifies the code in rawThreadInfoFromServerThreadInfo". Can you explain this in more detail? I'm wondering what exactly is special about the GENESIS case here

I thought that

This greatly simplifies the code in rawThreadInfoFromServerThreadInfo

is the only part of my explanation which you didn't understand. So I explained how is the implementation simplified by this.

325 ↗(On Diff #40738)

Or is it because it only affects my UX (not user-facing) and you wanted to avoid the extra work that would be necessary?

Yes, the reason is that this only affects your account in production, while not being less correct than before. We are disallowing adding users to community roots, because the keyservers don't know user relationships, and this knowledge is needed to know who can add whom to chats. But the auth keyserver knows user relationships. So this issue does not apply to GENESIS. So for GENESIS it is still equally correct as it was before.

inka requested review of this revision.Jun 4 2024, 6:31 AM

Requesting review again because I feel like my idea for handling setting NEXT_CODE_VERSION flag may be controversial

ashoat added inline comments.
keyserver/src/fetchers/thread-fetchers.js
14 ↗(On Diff #40738)

Thanks for explaining. I think this is safe. Will add a comment to D12062

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jun 4 2024, 10:20 AM