Files
headscale/hscontrol/policy/v2/policy_test.go
Kristoffer Dalby 3ca4ff8f3f state,servertest: add grant control plane tests and fix via route ReduceRoutes filtering
Add servertest grant policy control plane tests covering basic grants, via grants, and cap grants. Fix ReduceRoutes in State to apply route reduction to non-via routes first, then append via-included routes, preventing via grant routes from being incorrectly filtered.

Updates #2180
2026-04-01 14:10:42 +01:00

1799 lines
53 KiB
Go

package v2
import (
"net/netip"
"slices"
"testing"
"github.com/google/go-cmp/cmp"
"github.com/juanfont/headscale/hscontrol/policy/matcher"
"github.com/juanfont/headscale/hscontrol/types"
"github.com/stretchr/testify/require"
"gorm.io/gorm"
"tailscale.com/tailcfg"
)
func node(name, ipv4, ipv6 string, user types.User) *types.Node {
return &types.Node{
ID: 0,
Hostname: name,
IPv4: ap(ipv4),
IPv6: ap(ipv6),
User: new(user),
UserID: new(user.ID),
}
}
func TestPolicyManager(t *testing.T) {
users := types.Users{
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "testuser", Email: "testuser@headscale.net"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 2}, Name: "otheruser", Email: "otheruser@headscale.net"},
}
tests := []struct {
name string
pol string
nodes types.Nodes
wantFilter []tailcfg.FilterRule
wantMatchers []matcher.Match
}{
{
name: "empty-policy",
pol: "{}",
nodes: types.Nodes{},
wantFilter: tailcfg.FilterAllowAll,
wantMatchers: matcher.MatchesFromFilterRules(tailcfg.FilterAllowAll),
},
}
for _, tt := range tests {
t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(tt.pol), users, tt.nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
filter, matchers := pm.Filter()
if diff := cmp.Diff(tt.wantFilter, filter); diff != "" {
t.Errorf("Filter() filter mismatch (-want +got):\n%s", diff)
}
if diff := cmp.Diff(
tt.wantMatchers,
matchers,
cmp.AllowUnexported(matcher.Match{}),
); diff != "" {
t.Errorf("Filter() matchers mismatch (-want +got):\n%s", diff)
}
// TODO(kradalby): Test SSH Policy
})
}
}
func TestInvalidateAutogroupSelfCache(t *testing.T) {
users := types.Users{
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "user1", Email: "user1@headscale.net"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 2}, Name: "user2", Email: "user2@headscale.net"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 3}, Name: "user3", Email: "user3@headscale.net"},
}
//nolint:goconst // test-specific inline policy for clarity
policy := `{
"acls": [
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["autogroup:member"],
"dst": ["autogroup:self:*"]
}
]
}`
initialNodes := types.Nodes{
node("user1-node1", "100.64.0.1", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::1", users[0]),
node("user1-node2", "100.64.0.2", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::2", users[0]),
node("user2-node1", "100.64.0.3", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::3", users[1]),
node("user3-node1", "100.64.0.4", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::4", users[2]),
}
for i, n := range initialNodes {
n.ID = types.NodeID(i + 1) //nolint:gosec // safe conversion in test
}
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(policy), users, initialNodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
// Add to cache by calling FilterForNode for each node
for _, n := range initialNodes {
_, err := pm.FilterForNode(n.View())
require.NoError(t, err)
}
require.Len(t, pm.filterRulesMap, len(initialNodes))
tests := []struct {
name string
newNodes types.Nodes
expectedCleared int
description string
}{
{
name: "no_changes",
newNodes: types.Nodes{
node("user1-node1", "100.64.0.1", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::1", users[0]),
node("user1-node2", "100.64.0.2", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::2", users[0]),
node("user2-node1", "100.64.0.3", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::3", users[1]),
node("user3-node1", "100.64.0.4", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::4", users[2]),
},
expectedCleared: 0,
description: "No changes should clear no cache entries",
},
{
name: "node_added",
newNodes: types.Nodes{
node("user1-node1", "100.64.0.1", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::1", users[0]),
node("user1-node2", "100.64.0.2", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::2", users[0]),
node("user1-node3", "100.64.0.5", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::5", users[0]), // New node
node("user2-node1", "100.64.0.3", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::3", users[1]),
node("user3-node1", "100.64.0.4", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::4", users[2]),
},
expectedCleared: 2, // user1's existing nodes should be cleared
description: "Adding a node should clear cache for that user's existing nodes",
},
{
name: "node_removed",
newNodes: types.Nodes{
node("user1-node1", "100.64.0.1", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::1", users[0]),
// user1-node2 removed
node("user2-node1", "100.64.0.3", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::3", users[1]),
node("user3-node1", "100.64.0.4", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::4", users[2]),
},
expectedCleared: 2, // user1's remaining node + removed node should be cleared
description: "Removing a node should clear cache for that user's remaining nodes",
},
{
name: "user_changed",
newNodes: types.Nodes{
node("user1-node1", "100.64.0.1", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::1", users[0]),
node("user1-node2", "100.64.0.2", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::2", users[2]), // Changed to user3
node("user2-node1", "100.64.0.3", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::3", users[1]),
node("user3-node1", "100.64.0.4", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::4", users[2]),
},
expectedCleared: 3, // user1's node + user2's node + user3's nodes should be cleared
description: "Changing a node's user should clear cache for both old and new users",
},
{
name: "ip_changed",
newNodes: types.Nodes{
node("user1-node1", "100.64.0.10", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::10", users[0]), // IP changed
node("user1-node2", "100.64.0.2", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::2", users[0]),
node("user2-node1", "100.64.0.3", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::3", users[1]),
node("user3-node1", "100.64.0.4", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::4", users[2]),
},
expectedCleared: 2, // user1's nodes should be cleared
description: "Changing a node's IP should clear cache for that user's nodes",
},
}
for _, tt := range tests {
t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
for i, n := range tt.newNodes {
found := false
for _, origNode := range initialNodes {
if n.Hostname == origNode.Hostname {
n.ID = origNode.ID
found = true
break
}
}
if !found {
n.ID = types.NodeID(len(initialNodes) + i + 1) //nolint:gosec // safe conversion in test
}
}
pm.filterRulesMap = make(map[types.NodeID][]tailcfg.FilterRule)
for _, n := range initialNodes {
_, err := pm.FilterForNode(n.View())
require.NoError(t, err)
}
initialCacheSize := len(pm.filterRulesMap)
require.Equal(t, len(initialNodes), initialCacheSize)
pm.invalidateAutogroupSelfCache(initialNodes.ViewSlice(), tt.newNodes.ViewSlice())
// Verify the expected number of cache entries were cleared
finalCacheSize := len(pm.filterRulesMap)
clearedEntries := initialCacheSize - finalCacheSize
require.Equal(t, tt.expectedCleared, clearedEntries, tt.description)
})
}
}
// TestInvalidateGlobalPolicyCache tests the cache invalidation logic for global policies.
func TestInvalidateGlobalPolicyCache(t *testing.T) {
mustIPPtr := func(s string) *netip.Addr {
ip := netip.MustParseAddr(s)
return &ip
}
tests := []struct {
name string
oldNodes types.Nodes
newNodes types.Nodes
initialCache map[types.NodeID][]tailcfg.FilterRule
expectedCacheAfter map[types.NodeID]bool // true = should exist, false = should not exist
}{
{
name: "node property changed - invalidates only that node",
oldNodes: types.Nodes{
&types.Node{ID: 1, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.1")},
&types.Node{ID: 2, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.2")},
},
newNodes: types.Nodes{
&types.Node{ID: 1, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.99")}, // Changed
&types.Node{ID: 2, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.2")}, // Unchanged
},
initialCache: map[types.NodeID][]tailcfg.FilterRule{
1: {},
2: {},
},
expectedCacheAfter: map[types.NodeID]bool{
1: false, // Invalidated
2: true, // Preserved
},
},
{
name: "multiple nodes changed",
oldNodes: types.Nodes{
&types.Node{ID: 1, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.1")},
&types.Node{ID: 2, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.2")},
&types.Node{ID: 3, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.3")},
},
newNodes: types.Nodes{
&types.Node{ID: 1, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.99")}, // Changed
&types.Node{ID: 2, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.2")}, // Unchanged
&types.Node{ID: 3, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.88")}, // Changed
},
initialCache: map[types.NodeID][]tailcfg.FilterRule{
1: {},
2: {},
3: {},
},
expectedCacheAfter: map[types.NodeID]bool{
1: false, // Invalidated
2: true, // Preserved
3: false, // Invalidated
},
},
{
name: "node deleted - removes from cache",
oldNodes: types.Nodes{
&types.Node{ID: 1, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.1")},
&types.Node{ID: 2, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.2")},
},
newNodes: types.Nodes{
&types.Node{ID: 2, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.2")},
},
initialCache: map[types.NodeID][]tailcfg.FilterRule{
1: {},
2: {},
},
expectedCacheAfter: map[types.NodeID]bool{
1: false, // Deleted
2: true, // Preserved
},
},
{
name: "node added - no cache invalidation needed",
oldNodes: types.Nodes{
&types.Node{ID: 1, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.1")},
},
newNodes: types.Nodes{
&types.Node{ID: 1, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.1")},
&types.Node{ID: 2, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.2")}, // New
},
initialCache: map[types.NodeID][]tailcfg.FilterRule{
1: {},
},
expectedCacheAfter: map[types.NodeID]bool{
1: true, // Preserved
2: false, // Not in cache (new node)
},
},
{
name: "no changes - preserves all cache",
oldNodes: types.Nodes{
&types.Node{ID: 1, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.1")},
&types.Node{ID: 2, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.2")},
},
newNodes: types.Nodes{
&types.Node{ID: 1, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.1")},
&types.Node{ID: 2, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.2")},
},
initialCache: map[types.NodeID][]tailcfg.FilterRule{
1: {},
2: {},
},
expectedCacheAfter: map[types.NodeID]bool{
1: true,
2: true,
},
},
{
name: "routes changed - invalidates that node only",
oldNodes: types.Nodes{
&types.Node{
ID: 1,
IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.1"),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{RoutableIPs: []netip.Prefix{netip.MustParsePrefix("10.0.0.0/24"), netip.MustParsePrefix("192.168.0.0/24")}},
ApprovedRoutes: []netip.Prefix{netip.MustParsePrefix("10.0.0.0/24")},
},
&types.Node{ID: 2, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.2")},
},
newNodes: types.Nodes{
&types.Node{
ID: 1,
IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.1"),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{RoutableIPs: []netip.Prefix{netip.MustParsePrefix("10.0.0.0/24"), netip.MustParsePrefix("192.168.0.0/24")}},
ApprovedRoutes: []netip.Prefix{netip.MustParsePrefix("192.168.0.0/24")}, // Changed
},
&types.Node{ID: 2, IPv4: mustIPPtr("100.64.0.2")},
},
initialCache: map[types.NodeID][]tailcfg.FilterRule{
1: {},
2: {},
},
expectedCacheAfter: map[types.NodeID]bool{
1: false, // Invalidated
2: true, // Preserved
},
},
}
for _, tt := range tests {
t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
pm := &PolicyManager{
nodes: tt.oldNodes.ViewSlice(),
filterRulesMap: tt.initialCache,
usesAutogroupSelf: false,
}
pm.invalidateGlobalPolicyCache(tt.newNodes.ViewSlice())
// Verify cache state
for nodeID, shouldExist := range tt.expectedCacheAfter {
_, exists := pm.filterRulesMap[nodeID]
require.Equal(t, shouldExist, exists, "node %d cache existence mismatch", nodeID)
}
})
}
}
// TestAutogroupSelfReducedVsUnreducedRules verifies that:
// 1. BuildPeerMap uses unreduced compiled rules for determining peer relationships
// 2. FilterForNode returns reduced compiled rules for packet filters.
func TestAutogroupSelfReducedVsUnreducedRules(t *testing.T) {
user1 := types.User{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "user1", Email: "user1@headscale.net"}
user2 := types.User{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 2}, Name: "user2", Email: "user2@headscale.net"}
users := types.Users{user1, user2}
// Create two nodes
node1 := node("node1", "100.64.0.1", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::1", user1)
node1.ID = 1
node2 := node("node2", "100.64.0.2", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::2", user2)
node2.ID = 2
nodes := types.Nodes{node1, node2}
// Policy with autogroup:self - all members can reach their own devices
policyStr := `{
"acls": [
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["autogroup:member"],
"dst": ["autogroup:self:*"]
}
]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(policyStr), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
require.True(t, pm.usesAutogroupSelf, "policy should use autogroup:self")
// Test FilterForNode returns reduced rules
// For node1: should have rules where node1 is in destinations (its own IP)
filterNode1, err := pm.FilterForNode(nodes[0].View())
require.NoError(t, err)
// For node2: should have rules where node2 is in destinations (its own IP)
filterNode2, err := pm.FilterForNode(nodes[1].View())
require.NoError(t, err)
// FilterForNode should return reduced rules - verify they only contain the node's own IPs as destinations
// For node1, destinations should only be node1's IPs
node1IPs := []string{"100.64.0.1/32", "100.64.0.1", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::1/128", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::1"}
for _, rule := range filterNode1 {
for _, dst := range rule.DstPorts {
require.Contains(t, node1IPs, dst.IP,
"node1 filter should only contain node1's IPs as destinations")
}
}
// For node2, destinations should only be node2's IPs
node2IPs := []string{"100.64.0.2/32", "100.64.0.2", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::2/128", "fd7a:115c:a1e0::2"}
for _, rule := range filterNode2 {
for _, dst := range rule.DstPorts {
require.Contains(t, node2IPs, dst.IP,
"node2 filter should only contain node2's IPs as destinations")
}
}
// Test BuildPeerMap uses unreduced rules
peerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(nodes.ViewSlice())
// According to the policy, user1 can reach autogroup:self (which expands to node1's own IPs for node1)
// So node1 should be able to reach itself, but since we're looking at peer relationships,
// node1 should NOT have itself in the peer map (nodes don't peer with themselves)
// node2 should also not have any peers since user2 has no rules allowing it to reach anyone
// Verify peer relationships based on unreduced rules
// With unreduced rules, BuildPeerMap can properly determine that:
// - node1 can access autogroup:self (its own IPs)
// - node2 cannot access node1
require.Empty(t, peerMap[node1.ID], "node1 should have no peers (can only reach itself)")
require.Empty(t, peerMap[node2.ID], "node2 should have no peers")
}
// When separate ACL rules exist (one with autogroup:self, one with tag:router),
// the autogroup:self rule should not prevent the tag:router rule from working.
// This ensures that autogroup:self doesn't interfere with other ACL rules.
func TestAutogroupSelfWithOtherRules(t *testing.T) {
users := types.Users{
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "test-1", Email: "test-1@example.com"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 2}, Name: "test-2", Email: "test-2@example.com"},
}
// test-1 has a regular device
test1Node := &types.Node{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "test-1-device",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
// test-2 has a router device with tag:node-router
test2RouterNode := &types.Node{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "test-2-router",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::2"),
User: new(users[1]),
UserID: new(users[1].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:node-router"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
nodes := types.Nodes{test1Node, test2RouterNode}
// This matches the exact policy from issue #2838:
// - First rule: autogroup:member -> autogroup:self (allows users to see their own devices)
// - Second rule: group:home -> tag:node-router (should allow group members to see router)
policy := `{
"groups": {
"group:home": ["test-1@example.com", "test-2@example.com"]
},
"tagOwners": {
"tag:node-router": ["group:home"]
},
"acls": [
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["autogroup:member"],
"dst": ["autogroup:self:*"]
},
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["group:home"],
"dst": ["tag:node-router:*"]
}
]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(policy), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
peerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(nodes.ViewSlice())
// test-1 (in group:home) should see:
// 1. Their own node (from autogroup:self rule)
// 2. The router node (from group:home -> tag:node-router rule)
test1Peers := peerMap[test1Node.ID]
// Verify test-1 can see the router (group:home -> tag:node-router rule)
require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(test1Peers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
return n.ID() == test2RouterNode.ID
}), "test-1 should see test-2's router via group:home -> tag:node-router rule, even when autogroup:self rule exists (issue #2838)")
// Verify that test-1 has filter rules (including autogroup:self and tag:node-router access)
rules, err := pm.FilterForNode(test1Node.View())
require.NoError(t, err)
require.NotEmpty(t, rules, "test-1 should have filter rules from both ACL rules")
}
// TestAutogroupSelfPolicyUpdateTriggersMapResponse verifies that when a policy with
// autogroup:self is updated, SetPolicy returns true to trigger MapResponse updates,
// even if the global filter hash didn't change (which is always empty for autogroup:self).
// This fixes the issue where policy updates would clear caches but not trigger updates,
// leaving nodes with stale filter rules until reconnect.
func TestAutogroupSelfPolicyUpdateTriggersMapResponse(t *testing.T) {
users := types.Users{
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "test-1", Email: "test-1@example.com"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 2}, Name: "test-2", Email: "test-2@example.com"},
}
test1Node := &types.Node{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "test-1-device",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
test2Node := &types.Node{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "test-2-device",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::2"),
User: new(users[1]),
UserID: new(users[1].ID),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
nodes := types.Nodes{test1Node, test2Node}
// Initial policy with autogroup:self
initialPolicy := `{
"acls": [
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["autogroup:member"],
"dst": ["autogroup:self:*"]
}
]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(initialPolicy), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
require.True(t, pm.usesAutogroupSelf, "policy should use autogroup:self")
// Get initial filter rules for test-1 (should be cached)
rules1, err := pm.FilterForNode(test1Node.View())
require.NoError(t, err)
require.NotEmpty(t, rules1, "test-1 should have filter rules")
// Update policy with a different ACL that still results in empty global filter
// (only autogroup:self rules, which compile to empty global filter)
// We add a comment/description change by adding groups (which don't affect filter compilation)
updatedPolicy := `{
"groups": {
"group:test": ["test-1@example.com"]
},
"acls": [
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["autogroup:member"],
"dst": ["autogroup:self:*"]
}
]
}`
// SetPolicy should return true even though global filter hash didn't change
policyChanged, err := pm.SetPolicy([]byte(updatedPolicy))
require.NoError(t, err)
require.True(t, policyChanged, "SetPolicy should return true when policy content changes, even if global filter hash unchanged (autogroup:self)")
// Verify that caches were cleared and new rules are generated
// The cache should be empty, so FilterForNode will recompile
rules2, err := pm.FilterForNode(test1Node.View())
require.NoError(t, err)
require.NotEmpty(t, rules2, "test-1 should have filter rules after policy update")
// Verify that the policy hash tracking works - a second identical update should return false
policyChanged2, err := pm.SetPolicy([]byte(updatedPolicy))
require.NoError(t, err)
require.False(t, policyChanged2, "SetPolicy should return false when policy content hasn't changed")
}
// TestTagPropagationToPeerMap tests that when a node's tags change,
// the peer map is correctly updated. This is a regression test for
// https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/issues/2389
func TestTagPropagationToPeerMap(t *testing.T) {
users := types.Users{
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "user1", Email: "user1@headscale.net"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 2}, Name: "user2", Email: "user2@headscale.net"},
}
// Policy: user2 can access tag:web nodes
policy := `{
"tagOwners": {
"tag:web": ["user1@headscale.net"],
"tag:internal": ["user1@headscale.net"]
},
"acls": [
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["user2@headscale.net"],
"dst": ["user2@headscale.net:*"]
},
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["user2@headscale.net"],
"dst": ["tag:web:*"]
},
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["tag:web"],
"dst": ["user2@headscale.net:*"]
}
]
}`
// user1's node starts with tag:web and tag:internal
user1Node := &types.Node{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "user1-node",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:web", "tag:internal"},
}
// user2's node (no tags)
user2Node := &types.Node{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "user2-node",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::2"),
User: new(users[1]),
UserID: new(users[1].ID),
}
initialNodes := types.Nodes{user1Node, user2Node}
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(policy), users, initialNodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
// Initial state: user2 should see user1 as a peer (user1 has tag:web)
initialPeerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(initialNodes.ViewSlice())
// Check user2's peers - should include user1
user2Peers := initialPeerMap[user2Node.ID]
require.Len(t, user2Peers, 1, "user2 should have 1 peer initially (user1 with tag:web)")
require.Equal(t, user1Node.ID, user2Peers[0].ID(), "user2's peer should be user1")
// Check user1's peers - should include user2 (bidirectional ACL)
user1Peers := initialPeerMap[user1Node.ID]
require.Len(t, user1Peers, 1, "user1 should have 1 peer initially (user2)")
require.Equal(t, user2Node.ID, user1Peers[0].ID(), "user1's peer should be user2")
// Now change user1's tags: remove tag:web, keep only tag:internal
user1NodeUpdated := &types.Node{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "user1-node",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:internal"}, // tag:web removed!
}
updatedNodes := types.Nodes{user1NodeUpdated, user2Node}
// SetNodes should detect the tag change
changed, err := pm.SetNodes(updatedNodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
require.True(t, changed, "SetNodes should return true when tags change")
// After tag change: user2 should NOT see user1 as a peer anymore
// (no ACL allows user2 to access tag:internal)
updatedPeerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(updatedNodes.ViewSlice())
// Check user2's peers - should be empty now
user2PeersAfter := updatedPeerMap[user2Node.ID]
require.Empty(t, user2PeersAfter, "user2 should have no peers after tag:web is removed from user1")
// Check user1's peers - should also be empty
user1PeersAfter := updatedPeerMap[user1Node.ID]
require.Empty(t, user1PeersAfter, "user1 should have no peers after tag:web is removed")
// Also verify MatchersForNode returns non-empty matchers and ReduceNodes filters correctly
// This simulates what buildTailPeers does in the mapper
matchersForUser2, err := pm.MatchersForNode(user2Node.View())
require.NoError(t, err)
require.NotEmpty(t, matchersForUser2, "MatchersForNode should return non-empty matchers (at least self-access rule)")
// Test ReduceNodes logic with the updated nodes and matchers
// This is what buildTailPeers does - it takes peers from ListPeers (which might include user1)
// and filters them using ReduceNodes with the updated matchers
// Inline the ReduceNodes logic to avoid import cycle
user2View := user2Node.View()
user1UpdatedView := user1NodeUpdated.View()
// Check if user2 can access user1 OR user1 can access user2
canAccess := user2View.CanAccess(matchersForUser2, user1UpdatedView) ||
user1UpdatedView.CanAccess(matchersForUser2, user2View)
require.False(t, canAccess, "user2 should NOT be able to access user1 after tag:web is removed (ReduceNodes should filter out)")
}
// TestAutogroupSelfWithAdminOverride reproduces issue #2990:
// When autogroup:self is combined with an admin rule (group:admin -> *:*),
// tagged nodes become invisible to admins because BuildPeerMap uses asymmetric
// peer visibility in the autogroup:self path.
//
// The fix requires symmetric visibility: if admin can access tagged node,
// BOTH admin and tagged node should see each other as peers.
func TestAutogroupSelfWithAdminOverride(t *testing.T) {
users := types.Users{
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "admin", Email: "admin@example.com"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 2}, Name: "user1", Email: "user1@example.com"},
}
// Admin has a regular device
adminNode := &types.Node{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "admin-device",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
// user1 has a tagged server
user1TaggedNode := &types.Node{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "user1-server",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::2"),
User: new(users[1]),
UserID: new(users[1].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:server"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
nodes := types.Nodes{adminNode, user1TaggedNode}
// Policy from issue #2990:
// - group:admin has full access to everything (*:*)
// - autogroup:member -> autogroup:self (allows users to see their own devices)
//
// Bug: The tagged server becomes invisible to admin because:
// 1. Admin can access tagged server (via *:* rule)
// 2. Tagged server CANNOT access admin (no rule for that)
// 3. With asymmetric logic, tagged server is not added to admin's peer list
policy := `{
"groups": {
"group:admin": ["admin@example.com"]
},
"tagOwners": {
"tag:server": ["user1@example.com"]
},
"acls": [
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["group:admin"],
"dst": ["*:*"]
},
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["autogroup:member"],
"dst": ["autogroup:self:*"]
}
]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(policy), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
peerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(nodes.ViewSlice())
// Admin should see the tagged server as a peer (via group:admin -> *:* rule)
adminPeers := peerMap[adminNode.ID]
require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(adminPeers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
return n.ID() == user1TaggedNode.ID
}), "admin should see tagged server as peer via *:* rule (issue #2990)")
// Tagged server should also see admin as a peer (symmetric visibility)
// Even though tagged server cannot ACCESS admin, it should still SEE admin
// because admin CAN access it. This is required for proper network operation.
taggedPeers := peerMap[user1TaggedNode.ID]
require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(taggedPeers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
return n.ID() == adminNode.ID
}), "tagged server should see admin as peer (symmetric visibility)")
}
// TestAutogroupSelfSymmetricVisibility verifies that peer visibility is symmetric:
// if node A can access node B, then both A and B should see each other as peers.
// This is the same behavior as the global filter path.
func TestAutogroupSelfSymmetricVisibility(t *testing.T) {
users := types.Users{
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "user1", Email: "user1@example.com"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 2}, Name: "user2", Email: "user2@example.com"},
}
// user1 has device A
deviceA := &types.Node{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "device-a",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
// user2 has device B (tagged)
deviceB := &types.Node{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "device-b",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::2"),
User: new(users[1]),
UserID: new(users[1].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:web"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
nodes := types.Nodes{deviceA, deviceB}
// One-way rule: user1 can access tag:web, but tag:web cannot access user1
policy := `{
"tagOwners": {
"tag:web": ["user2@example.com"]
},
"acls": [
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["user1@example.com"],
"dst": ["tag:web:*"]
},
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["autogroup:member"],
"dst": ["autogroup:self:*"]
}
]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(policy), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
peerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(nodes.ViewSlice())
// Device A (user1) should see device B (tag:web) as peer
aPeers := peerMap[deviceA.ID]
require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(aPeers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
return n.ID() == deviceB.ID
}), "device A should see device B as peer (user1 -> tag:web rule)")
// Device B (tag:web) should ALSO see device A as peer (symmetric visibility)
// Even though B cannot ACCESS A, B should still SEE A as a peer
bPeers := peerMap[deviceB.ID]
require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(bPeers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
return n.ID() == deviceA.ID
}), "device B should see device A as peer (symmetric visibility)")
}
// TestAutogroupSelfDoesNotBreakOtherUsersAccess reproduces the Discord scenario
// where enabling autogroup:self for superadmins should NOT break access for
// other users who don't use autogroup:self.
//
// Scenario:
// - Rule 1: [superadmin, admin, direction] -> [tag:common:*]
// - Rule 2: [superadmin, admin] -> [tag:tech:*]
// - Rule 3: [superadmin] -> [tag:privileged:*, autogroup:self:*]
//
// Expected behavior:
// - Superadmin sees: tag:common, tag:tech, tag:privileged, and own devices
// - Admin sees: tag:common, tag:tech
// - Direction sees: tag:common
// - All tagged nodes should be visible to users who can access them.
func TestAutogroupSelfDoesNotBreakOtherUsersAccess(t *testing.T) {
users := types.Users{
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "superadmin", Email: "superadmin@example.com"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 2}, Name: "admin", Email: "admin@example.com"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 3}, Name: "direction", Email: "direction@example.com"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 4}, Name: "tagowner", Email: "tagowner@example.com"},
}
// Create nodes:
// - superadmin's device
// - admin's device
// - direction's device
// - tagged server (tag:common)
// - tagged server (tag:tech)
// - tagged server (tag:privileged)
superadminDevice := &types.Node{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "superadmin-laptop",
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
adminDevice := &types.Node{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "admin-laptop",
User: new(users[1]),
UserID: new(users[1].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
directionDevice := &types.Node{
ID: 3,
Hostname: "direction-laptop",
User: new(users[2]),
UserID: new(users[2].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.3"),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
commonServer := &types.Node{
ID: 4,
Hostname: "common-server",
User: new(users[3]),
UserID: new(users[3].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.4"),
Tags: []string{"tag:common"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
techServer := &types.Node{
ID: 5,
Hostname: "tech-server",
User: new(users[3]),
UserID: new(users[3].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.5"),
Tags: []string{"tag:tech"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
privilegedServer := &types.Node{
ID: 6,
Hostname: "privileged-server",
User: new(users[3]),
UserID: new(users[3].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.6"),
Tags: []string{"tag:privileged"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
nodes := types.Nodes{
superadminDevice,
adminDevice,
directionDevice,
commonServer,
techServer,
privilegedServer,
}
policy := `{
"groups": {
"group:superadmin": ["superadmin@example.com"],
"group:admin": ["admin@example.com"],
"group:direction": ["direction@example.com"]
},
"tagOwners": {
"tag:common": ["tagowner@example.com"],
"tag:tech": ["tagowner@example.com"],
"tag:privileged": ["tagowner@example.com"]
},
"acls": [
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["group:superadmin", "group:admin", "group:direction"],
"dst": ["tag:common:*"]
},
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["group:superadmin", "group:admin"],
"dst": ["tag:tech:*"]
},
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["group:superadmin"],
"dst": ["tag:privileged:*", "autogroup:self:*"]
}
]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(policy), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
peerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(nodes.ViewSlice())
// Helper to check if node A sees node B
canSee := func(a, b types.NodeID) bool {
peers := peerMap[a]
return slices.ContainsFunc(peers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
return n.ID() == b
})
}
// Superadmin should see all tagged servers
require.True(t, canSee(superadminDevice.ID, commonServer.ID),
"superadmin should see tag:common")
require.True(t, canSee(superadminDevice.ID, techServer.ID),
"superadmin should see tag:tech")
require.True(t, canSee(superadminDevice.ID, privilegedServer.ID),
"superadmin should see tag:privileged")
// Admin should see tag:common and tag:tech (but NOT tag:privileged)
require.True(t, canSee(adminDevice.ID, commonServer.ID),
"admin should see tag:common")
require.True(t, canSee(adminDevice.ID, techServer.ID),
"admin should see tag:tech")
require.False(t, canSee(adminDevice.ID, privilegedServer.ID),
"admin should NOT see tag:privileged")
// Direction should see tag:common only
require.True(t, canSee(directionDevice.ID, commonServer.ID),
"direction should see tag:common")
require.False(t, canSee(directionDevice.ID, techServer.ID),
"direction should NOT see tag:tech")
require.False(t, canSee(directionDevice.ID, privilegedServer.ID),
"direction should NOT see tag:privileged")
// Tagged servers should see their authorized users (symmetric visibility)
require.True(t, canSee(commonServer.ID, superadminDevice.ID),
"tag:common should see superadmin (symmetric)")
require.True(t, canSee(commonServer.ID, adminDevice.ID),
"tag:common should see admin (symmetric)")
require.True(t, canSee(commonServer.ID, directionDevice.ID),
"tag:common should see direction (symmetric)")
require.True(t, canSee(techServer.ID, superadminDevice.ID),
"tag:tech should see superadmin (symmetric)")
require.True(t, canSee(techServer.ID, adminDevice.ID),
"tag:tech should see admin (symmetric)")
require.True(t, canSee(privilegedServer.ID, superadminDevice.ID),
"tag:privileged should see superadmin (symmetric)")
}
// TestEmptyFilterNodesStillVisible verifies that nodes with empty filter rules
// (e.g., tagged servers that are only destinations, never sources) are still
// visible to nodes that can access them.
func TestEmptyFilterNodesStillVisible(t *testing.T) {
users := types.Users{
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "admin", Email: "admin@example.com"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 2}, Name: "tagowner", Email: "tagowner@example.com"},
}
adminDevice := &types.Node{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "admin-laptop",
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
// Tagged server - only a destination, never a source in any rule
// This means its compiled filter rules will be empty
taggedServer := &types.Node{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "server",
User: new(users[1]),
UserID: new(users[1].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
Tags: []string{"tag:server"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
nodes := types.Nodes{adminDevice, taggedServer}
// Policy where tagged server is ONLY a destination
policy := `{
"groups": {
"group:admin": ["admin@example.com"]
},
"tagOwners": {
"tag:server": ["tagowner@example.com"]
},
"acls": [
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["group:admin"],
"dst": ["tag:server:*", "autogroup:self:*"]
}
]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(policy), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
peerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(nodes.ViewSlice())
// Admin should see the tagged server
adminPeers := peerMap[adminDevice.ID]
require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(adminPeers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
return n.ID() == taggedServer.ID
}), "admin should see tagged server")
// Tagged server should see admin (symmetric visibility)
// Even though the server has no outbound rules (empty filter)
serverPeers := peerMap[taggedServer.ID]
require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(serverPeers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
return n.ID() == adminDevice.ID
}), "tagged server should see admin (symmetric visibility)")
}
// TestAutogroupSelfCombinedWithTags verifies that autogroup:self combined with
// specific tags in the same rule provides "combined access" - users get both
// tagged nodes AND their own devices.
func TestAutogroupSelfCombinedWithTags(t *testing.T) {
users := types.Users{
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "admin", Email: "admin@example.com"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 2}, Name: "tagowner", Email: "tagowner@example.com"},
}
// Admin has two devices
adminLaptop := &types.Node{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "admin-laptop",
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
adminPhone := &types.Node{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "admin-phone",
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
// Tagged web server
webServer := &types.Node{
ID: 3,
Hostname: "web-server",
User: new(users[1]),
UserID: new(users[1].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.3"),
Tags: []string{"tag:web"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
nodes := types.Nodes{adminLaptop, adminPhone, webServer}
// Combined rule: admin gets both tag:web AND autogroup:self
policy := `{
"groups": {
"group:admin": ["admin@example.com"]
},
"tagOwners": {
"tag:web": ["tagowner@example.com"]
},
"acls": [
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["group:admin"],
"dst": ["tag:web:*", "autogroup:self:*"]
}
]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(policy), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
peerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(nodes.ViewSlice())
// Helper to check visibility
canSee := func(a, b types.NodeID) bool {
peers := peerMap[a]
return slices.ContainsFunc(peers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
return n.ID() == b
})
}
// Admin laptop should see: admin phone (autogroup:self) AND web server (tag:web)
require.True(t, canSee(adminLaptop.ID, adminPhone.ID),
"admin laptop should see admin phone (autogroup:self)")
require.True(t, canSee(adminLaptop.ID, webServer.ID),
"admin laptop should see web server (tag:web)")
// Admin phone should see: admin laptop (autogroup:self) AND web server (tag:web)
require.True(t, canSee(adminPhone.ID, adminLaptop.ID),
"admin phone should see admin laptop (autogroup:self)")
require.True(t, canSee(adminPhone.ID, webServer.ID),
"admin phone should see web server (tag:web)")
// Web server should see both admin devices (symmetric visibility)
require.True(t, canSee(webServer.ID, adminLaptop.ID),
"web server should see admin laptop (symmetric)")
require.True(t, canSee(webServer.ID, adminPhone.ID),
"web server should see admin phone (symmetric)")
}
// TestIssue2990SameUserTaggedDevice reproduces the exact scenario from issue #2990:
// - One user (user1) who is in group:admin
// - node1: user device (not tagged), belongs to user1
// - node2: tagged with tag:admin, ALSO belongs to user1 (same user!)
// - Rule: group:admin -> *:*
// - Rule: autogroup:member -> autogroup:self:*
//
// Expected: node1 should be able to reach node2 via group:admin -> *:* rule.
func TestIssue2990SameUserTaggedDevice(t *testing.T) {
users := types.Users{
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "user1", Email: "user1@"},
}
// node1: user device (not tagged), belongs to user1
node1 := &types.Node{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "node1",
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::1"),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
// node2: tagged with tag:admin, ALSO belongs to user1 (same user!)
node2 := &types.Node{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "node2",
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
IPv6: ap("fd7a:115c:a1e0::2"),
Tags: []string{"tag:admin"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
}
nodes := types.Nodes{node1, node2}
// Exact policy from the issue report
policy := `{
"groups": {
"group:admin": ["user1@"]
},
"tagOwners": {
"tag:admin": ["group:admin"]
},
"acls": [
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["group:admin"],
"dst": ["*:*"]
},
{
"action": "accept",
"src": ["autogroup:member"],
"dst": ["autogroup:self:*"]
}
]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(policy), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
// Check peer visibility
peerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(nodes.ViewSlice())
canSee := func(a, b types.NodeID) bool {
peers := peerMap[a]
return slices.ContainsFunc(peers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
return n.ID() == b
})
}
// node1 should see node2 (via group:admin -> *:* and symmetric visibility)
require.True(t, canSee(node1.ID, node2.ID),
"node1 should see node2 as peer")
// node2 should see node1 (symmetric visibility)
require.True(t, canSee(node2.ID, node1.ID),
"node2 should see node1 as peer (symmetric visibility)")
// Check packet filter for node1 - should allow access to node2
filter1, err := pm.FilterForNode(node1.View())
require.NoError(t, err)
t.Logf("node1 filter rules: %d", len(filter1))
for i, rule := range filter1 {
t.Logf(" rule %d: SrcIPs=%v DstPorts=%v", i, rule.SrcIPs, rule.DstPorts)
}
// node1's filter should include a rule allowing access to node2's IP
// (via the group:admin -> *:* rule)
require.NotEmpty(t, filter1,
"node1's packet filter should have rules (group:admin -> *:*)")
// Check packet filter for node2 - tagged device, should have limited access
filter2, err := pm.FilterForNode(node2.View())
require.NoError(t, err)
t.Logf("node2 filter rules: %d", len(filter2))
for i, rule := range filter2 {
t.Logf(" rule %d: SrcIPs=%v DstPorts=%v", i, rule.SrcIPs, rule.DstPorts)
}
}
func TestViaRoutesForPeer(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
users := types.Users{
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 1}, Name: "user1", Email: "user1@"},
{Model: gorm.Model{ID: 2}, Name: "user2", Email: "user2@"},
}
t.Run("self_returns_empty", func(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
nodes := types.Nodes{
{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "router",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:router"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{
RoutableIPs: []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")},
},
ApprovedRoutes: []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")},
},
}
//nolint:goconst
pol := `{
"tagOwners": {
"tag:router": ["user1@"]
},
"grants": [{
"src": ["user1@"],
"dst": ["10.0.0.0/24"],
"ip": ["*"],
"via": ["tag:router"]
}]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(pol), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
result := pm.ViaRoutesForPeer(nodes[0].View(), nodes[0].View())
require.Empty(t, result.Include)
require.Empty(t, result.Exclude)
})
t.Run("viewer_not_in_source", func(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
nodes := types.Nodes{
{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "viewer",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
User: new(users[1]),
UserID: new(users[1].ID),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
},
{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "router",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:router"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{
RoutableIPs: []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")},
},
ApprovedRoutes: []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")},
},
}
//nolint:goconst
pol := `{
"tagOwners": {
"tag:router": ["user1@"]
},
"grants": [{
"src": ["user1@"],
"dst": ["10.0.0.0/24"],
"ip": ["*"],
"via": ["tag:router"]
}]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(pol), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
// user2 is not in the grant source (user1@), so result should be empty.
result := pm.ViaRoutesForPeer(nodes[0].View(), nodes[1].View())
require.Empty(t, result.Include)
require.Empty(t, result.Exclude)
})
t.Run("peer_does_not_advertise_destination", func(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
nodes := types.Nodes{
{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "viewer",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
},
{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "router",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:router"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{
// Advertises 192.168.0.0/24, not 10.0.0.0/24.
RoutableIPs: []netip.Prefix{mp("192.168.0.0/24")},
},
ApprovedRoutes: []netip.Prefix{mp("192.168.0.0/24")},
},
}
pol := `{
"tagOwners": {
"tag:router": ["user1@"]
},
"grants": [{
"src": ["user1@"],
"dst": ["10.0.0.0/24"],
"ip": ["*"],
"via": ["tag:router"]
}]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(pol), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
result := pm.ViaRoutesForPeer(nodes[0].View(), nodes[1].View())
require.Empty(t, result.Include)
require.Empty(t, result.Exclude)
})
t.Run("peer_with_via_tag_include", func(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
nodes := types.Nodes{
{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "viewer",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
},
{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "router",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:router"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{
RoutableIPs: []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")},
},
ApprovedRoutes: []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")},
},
}
pol := `{
"tagOwners": {
"tag:router": ["user1@"]
},
"grants": [{
"src": ["user1@"],
"dst": ["10.0.0.0/24"],
"ip": ["*"],
"via": ["tag:router"]
}]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(pol), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
result := pm.ViaRoutesForPeer(nodes[0].View(), nodes[1].View())
require.Equal(t, []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")}, result.Include)
require.Empty(t, result.Exclude)
})
t.Run("peer_without_via_tag_exclude", func(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
nodes := types.Nodes{
{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "viewer",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
},
{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "other-router",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:other"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{
RoutableIPs: []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")},
},
ApprovedRoutes: []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")},
},
}
pol := `{
"tagOwners": {
"tag:router": ["user1@"],
"tag:other": ["user1@"]
},
"grants": [{
"src": ["user1@"],
"dst": ["10.0.0.0/24"],
"ip": ["*"],
"via": ["tag:router"]
}]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(pol), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
// Peer has tag:other, not tag:router, so route goes to Exclude.
result := pm.ViaRoutesForPeer(nodes[0].View(), nodes[1].View())
require.Empty(t, result.Include)
require.Equal(t, []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")}, result.Exclude)
})
t.Run("mixed_prefix_and_autogroup_internet", func(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
nodes := types.Nodes{
{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "viewer",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
},
{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "router",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:router"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{
RoutableIPs: []netip.Prefix{
mp("10.0.0.0/24"),
mp("0.0.0.0/0"),
mp("::/0"),
},
},
ApprovedRoutes: []netip.Prefix{
mp("10.0.0.0/24"),
mp("0.0.0.0/0"),
mp("::/0"),
},
},
}
pol := `{
"tagOwners": {
"tag:router": ["user1@"]
},
"grants": [{
"src": ["user1@"],
"dst": ["10.0.0.0/24", "autogroup:internet"],
"ip": ["*"],
"via": ["tag:router"]
}]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(pol), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
result := pm.ViaRoutesForPeer(nodes[0].View(), nodes[1].View())
// Include should have the subnet route and both exit routes.
require.Contains(t, result.Include, mp("10.0.0.0/24"))
require.Contains(t, result.Include, mp("0.0.0.0/0"))
require.Contains(t, result.Include, mp("::/0"))
require.Len(t, result.Include, 3)
require.Empty(t, result.Exclude)
})
t.Run("autogroup_internet_exit_routes", func(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
nodes := types.Nodes{
{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "viewer",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
},
{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "exit-node",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:exit"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{
RoutableIPs: []netip.Prefix{
mp("0.0.0.0/0"),
mp("::/0"),
},
},
ApprovedRoutes: []netip.Prefix{
mp("0.0.0.0/0"),
mp("::/0"),
},
},
{
ID: 3,
Hostname: "non-exit",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.3"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:other"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{
RoutableIPs: []netip.Prefix{
mp("0.0.0.0/0"),
mp("::/0"),
},
},
ApprovedRoutes: []netip.Prefix{
mp("0.0.0.0/0"),
mp("::/0"),
},
},
}
pol := `{
"tagOwners": {
"tag:exit": ["user1@"],
"tag:other": ["user1@"]
},
"grants": [{
"src": ["user1@"],
"dst": ["autogroup:internet"],
"ip": ["*"],
"via": ["tag:exit"]
}]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(pol), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
// Peer with tag:exit -> Include gets exit routes.
resultExit := pm.ViaRoutesForPeer(nodes[0].View(), nodes[1].View())
require.Contains(t, resultExit.Include, mp("0.0.0.0/0"))
require.Contains(t, resultExit.Include, mp("::/0"))
require.Len(t, resultExit.Include, 2)
require.Empty(t, resultExit.Exclude)
// Peer without tag:exit -> Exclude gets exit routes.
resultOther := pm.ViaRoutesForPeer(nodes[0].View(), nodes[2].View())
require.Empty(t, resultOther.Include)
require.Contains(t, resultOther.Exclude, mp("0.0.0.0/0"))
require.Contains(t, resultOther.Exclude, mp("::/0"))
require.Len(t, resultOther.Exclude, 2)
})
t.Run("via_routes_survive_reduce_routes", func(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
// This test validates that via-included routes are not
// filtered out by ReduceRoutes. The viewer's matchers
// allow tag-to-tag IP connectivity but don't explicitly
// cover the subnet prefix, so ReduceRoutes alone would
// drop it. The fix in state.RoutesForPeer applies
// ReduceRoutes first, then appends via-included routes.
nodes := types.Nodes{
{
ID: 1,
Hostname: "client",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.1"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:group-a"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{},
},
{
ID: 2,
Hostname: "router",
IPv4: ap("100.64.0.2"),
User: new(users[0]),
UserID: new(users[0].ID),
Tags: []string{"tag:router-a"},
Hostinfo: &tailcfg.Hostinfo{
RoutableIPs: []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")},
},
ApprovedRoutes: []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")},
},
}
pol := `{
"tagOwners": {
"tag:router-a": ["user1@"],
"tag:group-a": ["user1@"]
},
"grants": [
{
"src": ["tag:group-a", "tag:router-a"],
"dst": ["tag:group-a", "tag:router-a"],
"ip": ["*"]
},
{
"src": ["tag:group-a"],
"dst": ["10.0.0.0/24"],
"ip": ["*"],
"via": ["tag:router-a"]
}
]
}`
pm, err := NewPolicyManager([]byte(pol), users, nodes.ViewSlice())
require.NoError(t, err)
client := nodes[0].View()
router := nodes[1].View()
// ViaRoutesForPeer says router should include 10.0.0.0/24.
viaResult := pm.ViaRoutesForPeer(client, router)
require.Equal(t, []netip.Prefix{mp("10.0.0.0/24")}, viaResult.Include)
require.Empty(t, viaResult.Exclude)
// Matchers for the client cover tag-to-tag connectivity
// but do NOT cover the 10.0.0.0/24 subnet prefix.
matchers, err := pm.MatchersForNode(client)
require.NoError(t, err)
require.NotEmpty(t, matchers)
// CanAccessRoute with the client's matchers returns false for
// 10.0.0.0/24 because the matchers only cover tag-to-tag IPs.
// This means ReduceRoutes would filter it out, which is why
// state.RoutesForPeer must add via routes AFTER ReduceRoutes.
canAccess := client.CanAccessRoute(matchers, mp("10.0.0.0/24"))
require.False(t, canAccess,
"client should NOT be able to access 10.0.0.0/24 via matchers alone; "+
"state.RoutesForPeer adds via routes after ReduceRoutes to fix this")
})
}