mirror of
https://github.com/juanfont/headscale.git
synced 2026-03-31 14:33:42 +02:00
This commit upgrades the codebase from Go 1.25.5 to Go 1.26rc2 and adopts new language features. Toolchain updates: - go.mod: go 1.25.5 → go 1.26rc2 - flake.nix: buildGo125Module → buildGo126Module, go_1_25 → go_1_26 - flake.nix: build golangci-lint from source with Go 1.26 - Dockerfile.integration: golang:1.25-trixie → golang:1.26rc2-trixie - Dockerfile.tailscale-HEAD: golang:1.25-alpine → golang:1.26rc2-alpine - Dockerfile.derper: golang:alpine → golang:1.26rc2-alpine - .goreleaser.yml: go mod tidy -compat=1.25 → -compat=1.26 - cmd/hi/run.go: fallback Go version 1.25 → 1.26rc2 - .pre-commit-config.yaml: simplify golangci-lint hook entry Code modernization using Go 1.26 features: - Replace tsaddr.SortPrefixes with slices.SortFunc + netip.Prefix.Compare - Replace ptr.To(x) with new(x) syntax - Replace errors.As with errors.AsType[T] Lint rule updates: - Add forbidigo rules to prevent regression to old patterns
1342 lines
42 KiB
Go
1342 lines
42 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)
|
|
}
|
|
}
|