From 187442ec7bcee29b21194d4e4ef253f3bd0ad9f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jochen Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2026 18:10:57 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Issue 188: a refusal inside on-the-network drops a machine silently --- .../00-report.md | 48 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+) create mode 100644 04-ISSUES/188-a-refusal-inside-on-the-network-drops-a-machine-silently/00-report.md diff --git a/04-ISSUES/188-a-refusal-inside-on-the-network-drops-a-machine-silently/00-report.md b/04-ISSUES/188-a-refusal-inside-on-the-network-drops-a-machine-silently/00-report.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7efa488 --- /dev/null +++ b/04-ISSUES/188-a-refusal-inside-on-the-network-drops-a-machine-silently/00-report.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +status: located +opened: 2026-10-01 +located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/network.go (onTheNetwork resolves every machine unchecked and skips one that refuses, saying nothing)] +fixed-by: +amended-design: [] +--- + +# 188 — A refusal inside "who is on the network" drops a machine silently, and every symptom points elsewhere + +## What was observed + +At 15:28Z on 2026-10-01 the controller rolled to a build that refuses a machine with two modules +answering one provision and no pin naming which (mesh-controller 195). The control node had two +issuers of `acme-ca`. From that moment every plan of the control node failed with *step-ca has a +content that says `${machine:at}`, and this machine says mesh-range or name*; `seats` listed every +seat as unheld; the build machine refused the builder's and the proxy's builds with *no clone base +for that seat — nothing holds it*; and the roll-out of the next controller was refused with the +`${machine:at}` words. Not one of those names the cause. It was found by running the previous image +as a one-shot beside the current one and reading the difference, forty minutes later. + +## Why this is here + +`onTheNetwork` decides which machines have an address by resolving each one, unchecked, and +*skipping* any whose resolution errs. A machine skipped there has no `at`, so its own plan fails on +the first placeholder that needs one, in another module's words; everything held on it reads as +unheld; everything built from it cannot be built. The design lets one refusal become four unrelated +symptoms and no sentence about the refusal itself. It is the same shape as +[issue 187](../187-the-mesh-tells-nobody-when-it-stops-working/00-report.md): a fault that is swallowed +where it happens and discovered where it hurts. + +## What a fix needs + +- A machine whose resolution refuses is said, by `onTheNetwork`'s caller or in `status`: *the + control node does not resolve: more than one module provides acme-ca; pin one* — the resolver's + own words, which exist and were dropped. +- A refusal that a release introduces for a machine already converged — a new rule the stored + state does not meet — must not be silent at the roll either; the controller's prepare or first + resolution after a roll should name every machine it now refuses. + +*How this would be checked:* a controller test where one machine's unchecked resolution refuses: +`status` names the machine and the refusal, and the other machines keep their addresses. + +## Resolved in the live mesh, 2026-10-01 + +By hand: `pin novox acme-ca novox step-ca`, the provider the previous controller had in fact bound +the proxy to (read from its plan), after which the control node resolved, every seat read as held +and the roll-out proceeded. The design fault above stands.