2026-10-02 00:44:30 +00:00
1 changed files with 62 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+---
+status: open
+opened: 2026-10-02
+located-in: []
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 195 — Every assigned module is counted as a bus user without a credential, and the real gaps are lost in the count
+
+## What was observed
+
+`status`, and `plan` for any machine, open with one line before anything else:
+
+```
+the bus's user list leaves out 49 user(s) the mesh has minted no credential for: <node>.<module>, …
+Each is a user that cannot connect until one is issued
+```
+
+The 49 are spread over four machines and name 26 distinct modules. Checked against the catalogue on
+2026-10-02:
+
+| what the module's definition says | modules |
+|---|---|
+| declares an own secret named `broker` | 1 — the route proxy, which needed a bus account for issue 191 |
+| declares no `broker` secret, and emits, consumes and serves nothing on the bus | 17 — the packet filter, the intrusion filter, the ssh daemon, the resolver configuration, the certificate authority, the broker itself and others |
+| declares no `broker` secret, and **emits events** | 1 |
+| not in this catalogue, so not checked | 7 |
+
+So the line counts every module assigned anywhere as a bus user. For almost all of them that is not a
+missing credential. A module with no `broker` secret has nowhere to receive one, and the mesh already
+says an account nothing reads is an orphan ([issue 078](../078-a-delivered-secret-is-accepted-under-any-name/00-report.md)).
+
+Two real gaps sit inside the count and cannot be told from the noise:
+
+- **A declared `broker` secret was filled with a value that is not an account.** Before its account was
+  issued, the route proxy's plan on both machines already carried a sealed `broker` file, while the same
+  status line said no credential had been minted for it. A push had made the declared secret the way it
+  makes any own secret. The module would have started with a credential the bus does not know, and
+  nothing would have said why. It was found only because the account was being issued by hand.
+- **A module that emits events declares no way to reach the bus.** Its events can go nowhere, and no
+  check refuses that.
+
+## Why it matters
+
+**A warning that is always on is read as never on.** The line names 49 users on every `status` and every
+`plan`. An operator, or an agent, learns to scroll past it. The one entry that was a real fault looked
+exactly like the 48 that were not.
+
+**The fault that was real is the silent kind.** A module whose broker credential is a generated value
+starts, fails to authenticate, and reports that three layers away from the cause. That is the failure
+the composition already refuses for a secret that was never made at all ("declared and not made"). Here
+a value was made, so the refusal never fired.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Should a bus user be composed for a module that declares no `broker` secret at all? If not, the line
+  shrinks to the modules that can actually use an account.
+- Is a `broker` secret ever correctly made by the generic generator? If not, should composition refuse
+  a declared `broker` until it is issued, or should the mesh issue it as part of placing the module?
+- Should a module that emits, consumes or serves on the bus be refused when it declares no `broker`
+  secret?