Files
hq/04-ISSUES/055-the-adopted-store-and-broker-may-be-reachable-on-one-node-only/00-report.md
T
jschoubben fcf3b6f4d5 Issues 054, 055 — the debt adopting the store and broker leaves
054: the adopted servers bind 0.0.0.0 from genesis but the packet filter is
installed later, so there is a window where they are open with only bootstrap
credentials. 055: the servers bind on the control-node and the one-node bed
cannot prove a consumer on another machine can reach them over the overlay.

Both are follow-ups to issue 051's adoption (WBS Phase 3), tracked rather than
rushed.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
2026-09-16 22:04:28 +02:00

41 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown

---
status: open
opened: 2026-09-16
located-in: []
fixed-by:
amended-design:
---
# 055 — The adopted store and broker may be reachable on the control-node only
## Symptom
The adopted `mesh-store` and `mesh-broker` bind `0.0.0.0` on the control-node. The
co-located provisioner and control plane reach them over loopback, and a co-located consumer
reaches them through the container bridge — which is what the one-node bed proves. A consumer
on ANOTHER machine reaches a provider by its `.internal` name over the private network, and
whether that path resolves to the control-node's bind is unproven: the one-node bed cannot
exercise it, and no multi-node bed installs the adopted store or broker.
## Why it matters
Phase 3's stated goal is a mesh — of any size — that runs one postgres and one lavinmq. The
whole point of a shared store and broker is that a module on any machine that is granted a
database or a vhost can open it. If the adopted servers are reachable only on the machine
they run on, a grant to a module placed elsewhere names an endpoint that machine cannot dial,
and the failure surfaces far from here as a consumer that cannot connect.
Before adoption this was a non-question: the store served the control plane alone and the
`postgres` module raised a second server that published mesh-wide. Collapsing to one server
means the one server has to be the mesh-wide one, reachable across the overlay.
## Open questions
- Does the mesh deliver the store and broker endpoint to a remote consumer as an address that
consumer can dial — the provider's overlay address — rather than a loopback or bridge
address meaningful only on the control-node?
- Is a `0.0.0.0` bind on the control-node reachable over the WireGuard overlay from a joined
machine, and is the packet filter's `from: mesh` rule enough to let it through?
- What is the smallest multi-node bed that would prove a database granted to a module on a
joined machine can be opened from there?