mirror of
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo.git
synced 2024-11-08 18:04:14 +01:00
add aspect resulting from our discussion
This commit is contained in:
Michael Jerger
parent
b02b8a307c
commit
56660e3a0b
1 changed files with 64 additions and 17 deletions
|
|
@ -6,10 +6,17 @@
|
|||
- [Decision](#decision)
|
||||
- [Choices](#choices)
|
||||
- [1. Map to plain forgejo User](#1-map-to-plain-forgejo-user)
|
||||
- [1. Pro](#1-pro)
|
||||
- [1. Con](#1-con)
|
||||
- [2. Map to User-\&-ExternalLoginUser](#2-map-to-user--externalloginuser)
|
||||
- [2. Pro](#2-pro)
|
||||
- [2. Con](#2-con)
|
||||
- [3. Map to User-\&-FederatedUser](#3-map-to-user--federateduser)
|
||||
- [3. Pro](#3-pro)
|
||||
- [3. Con](#3-con)
|
||||
- [4. Map to new FederatedPerson and introduce a common User interface](#4-map-to-new-federatedperson-and-introduce-a-common-user-interface)
|
||||
|
||||
- [4. Pro](#4-pro)
|
||||
- [4. Con](#4-con)
|
||||
|
||||
## Status
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -41,11 +48,21 @@ tbd
|
|||
4. User is not Admin
|
||||
5. User is not Active
|
||||
|
||||
We can use forgejo code (like star / unstar fkt.) without changes.
|
||||
#### 1. Pro
|
||||
|
||||
No new model & persistence is introduced.
|
||||
1. We can use forgejo code (like star / unstar fkt.) without changes.
|
||||
2. No new model & persistence is introduced, architectural change is small.
|
||||
|
||||
But we use fields against their semantic and see some problems / limitations for mapping arise.
|
||||
#### 1. Con
|
||||
|
||||
1. But we use fields against their semantic and see some problems / limitations for mapping arise.
|
||||
1. generating email having the source fqdn is impacted by email whitelists.
|
||||
1. loginName is used for mapping, but e.g. @ is not allowed.
|
||||
1. password is generated headless.
|
||||
2. Maybe the large User table gets even larger (see https://git.exozy.me/a/gitea/issues/2)
|
||||
3. Occasional contributors may not understand the difference in level of trust implied by federated user. This may promote errors with security impact.
|
||||
4. Understanding federated users entries being kind of cache would conflict with user table entries.
|
||||
5. LoginNames may be occupied by federated users. This may leak information and increase attack surface.
|
||||
|
||||
```mermaid
|
||||
classDiagram
|
||||
|
|
@ -112,15 +129,26 @@ classDiagram
|
|||
4. User is not Admin
|
||||
5. User is not Active
|
||||
3. Created ExternalLoginUser is limited
|
||||
1. Login via fediverse is not intended and will not work
|
||||
1. Login via fediverse is not intended and will not work. This is distinct to the F3 usecase.
|
||||
|
||||
We can use forgejo code (like star / unstar fkt.) without changes.
|
||||
#### 2. Pro
|
||||
|
||||
No new model & persistence is introduced, no need for refactorings.
|
||||
1. We can use forgejo code (like star / unstar fkt.) without changes.
|
||||
2. No new model & persistence is introduced, architectural change is small. Comparable to option 1.
|
||||
3. This option was taken by the F3-Export/Import-Feature
|
||||
4. Mapping may be more reliable compared to option 1.
|
||||
|
||||
But we use fields against their semantic (User.EMail, User.Password, User.LoginSource, ExternalLoginUser.Login*) and see some problems / limitations for login functionality arise.
|
||||
#### 2. Con
|
||||
|
||||
Mapping may be more reliable compared to option 1.
|
||||
1. We use fields against their semantic (User.EMail, User.Password, User.LoginSource, ExternalLoginUser.Login*) and see some problems / limitations for login functionality arise. Situation is worse than option 1.
|
||||
1. generating email having the source fqdn is impacted by email whitelists.
|
||||
2. password is generated headless.
|
||||
3. TODO: How would we map/generate User.LoginName ?
|
||||
4. TODO: How would we generate ExternalLoginUser.Login* fields?
|
||||
2. Getting a larger User table applies to this solution comparable to option 1.
|
||||
3. Occasional contributors may not understand the difference in level of trust implied by federated user, this may promote errors with security impact.
|
||||
4. Understanding federated users entries being kind of cache would conflict with user table entries.
|
||||
5. LoginNames may be occupied by federated users. This may leak information and increase attack surface.
|
||||
|
||||
```mermaid
|
||||
classDiagram
|
||||
|
|
@ -209,13 +237,23 @@ classDiagram
|
|||
4. User is not Admin
|
||||
5. User is not Active
|
||||
|
||||
We can use forgejo code (like star / unstar fkt.) without changes.
|
||||
#### 3. Pro
|
||||
|
||||
Introduce FederatedUser as new model & persistence.
|
||||
1. We can use forgejo code (like star / unstar fkt.) without changes.
|
||||
2. Introduce FederatedUser as new model & persistence, architectural change is medium.
|
||||
3. We will be able to have a reliable mapping. Better than option 1 & 2.
|
||||
|
||||
But we use fields (User.EMail, User.Password) against their semantic, but we probably can handle the problems arising.
|
||||
#### 3. Con
|
||||
|
||||
We will be able to have a reliable mapping.
|
||||
1. But we use fields (User.EMail, User.Password) against their semantic, but we probably can handle the problems arising. Situation is comparable to option 1.
|
||||
1. generating email having the source fqdn is impacted by email whitelists.
|
||||
2. password is generated headless.
|
||||
3. TODO: How would we map/generate User.LoginName ?
|
||||
2. Getting a larger User table applies to this solution comparable to option 1.
|
||||
3. Occasional contributors may not understand the difference in level of trust implied by federated user, this may promote errors with security impact, comparable to option 1.
|
||||
4. Getting a larger User table applies to this solution comparable to option 1.
|
||||
5. Understanding federated users entries being kind of cache would conflict with user table entries.
|
||||
6. LoginNames may be occupied by federated users. This may leak information and increase attack surface.
|
||||
|
||||
```mermaid
|
||||
classDiagram
|
||||
|
|
@ -302,11 +340,20 @@ classDiagram
|
|||
1. We map PersonId.asWbfinger() to FederatedPerson.ExternalID (e.g. 13@some.instan.ce).
|
||||
2. We will have no semantic mismatch.
|
||||
|
||||
We can use forgejo code (like star / unstar fkt.) after refactorings only. At every place of interaction we have to enhance persistence (e.g. a find may have to query two tables now) & introduce a common User interface.
|
||||
#### 4. Pro
|
||||
|
||||
We introduce new model & persistence.
|
||||
1. We will be able to have a reliable mapping.
|
||||
2. We will not use fields against their semantics.
|
||||
3. We do not enhance user table with "cache entries". Forgejo stays scalable, no additional DOS surface.
|
||||
4. Occasional contributors may understand a clear difference between user and federated user.
|
||||
5. No LoginNames where occupied
|
||||
6. Caching aspects of federated users (like refresh, evict) may be easier to implement.
|
||||
|
||||
We will be able to have a reliable mapping.
|
||||
#### 4. Con
|
||||
|
||||
1. We can use forgejo code (like star / unstar fkt.) after refactorings only.
|
||||
2. At every place of interaction we have to enhance persistence (e.g. a find may have to query two tables now) & introduce a common User interface.
|
||||
3. We introduce new model & persistence.
|
||||
|
||||
```mermaid
|
||||
classDiagram
|
||||
|
|
@ -380,4 +427,4 @@ classDiagram
|
|||
FederationHost *-- NodeInfo
|
||||
FederatedPerson -- FederationHost
|
||||
FederatedPerson ..<| CommonUser
|
||||
```
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue