A board reads through interfaces and holds nothing. Everything it needs
is already answered — as text, for people, which is not something a page
can read.
`--json` rather than a serving API, because nothing needs one yet:
whatever serves a board runs the command, and the constraint holds either
way — the board never touches a context's store. An API is the larger
thing and should wait until something asks for it.
Both forms are gathered from the same reads before either says anything,
so they answer the same questions rather than being two implementations
that can drift. That was not true of the first version: the JSON printed
after the text, because the branch was too late.
Four properties, each asserted and each confirmed to fail when removed:
- refused and failed stay distinct all the way out. They are fixed in
different places, so one word for both sends half a page's readers to
the wrong one — and how much DID apply is carried, since "three of
eight" and "none of eight" are different machines
- a machine that never spoke carries no time at all, rather than a zero
one that any page would format as a date in 1970
- nothing is null. A page distinguishing "no machines are wrong" from
"this field is missing" has to handle both, and null is the one that
gets forgotten
- no field is named like a secret. Everything here comes from records
that hold no readable one, but a shape a page is built against is
exactly where one would eventually be added for convenience
Two things, both found by trying to write a real postgres module and
discovering it could not be said.
A database has a superuser password, a broker an administrator, a
registry an account. None of them is *for* anybody — they are not the
credential a consumer is given, and the mechanism that hands those out
has a consumer in the middle of it. So a module may declare what it needs
and where to put it, and the mesh generates one per node, seals it, and
reads it no more than it reads any other.
Per node, deliberately: a module running on three machines has three
passwords. One in the manifest instead would put the same secret on every
machine that ever runs it, in a file anybody can read, for ever. Made
once and kept, or a running database would be handed a password it was
not started with; remade when the machine's sealing key changes, like
everything else sealed here.
A need declared and not made is refused rather than skipped, because a
module whose own credential is silently absent starts, fails to
authenticate, and the reason is three layers from the machine reporting
it.
And the provisioner can watch. That is what lets it be a module rather
than a binary somebody places: run once, it needs invoking after every
declaration by a timer or a unit wired to a file; watching, it is an
ordinary long-running service the host already supervises. It polls
rather than watching the filesystem, because the host writes atomically —
the file is replaced, so a watch on the path stops seeing anything after
the first replacement, and a watcher that silently stops working is worse
than a poll. Credentials are compared by digest and never held: this runs
for as long as the machine is up.
HAL keeps env vars in the registry, encrypted at rest. Its own tooling
records what that bought and what it did not. `secret_locate` matches by
value rather than by name — because the same password sits in
mesh_provisions, in module_env, in each node's .env in plain text, and
inside every connection string composed from it, and its documentation
says those URL copies "are often the only copies actually in use". And a
query against the encrypted column returns zero rows and proves nothing,
so auditing moved to the decrypted copies on the nodes.
Two faults there, and encryption at rest addresses neither: the control
plane can read what it stores, so a copy of the database is a copy of
every credential; and one secret has many homes with nothing tracking
them.
So here the mesh generates a password, seals it to each end with keys
those nodes generated, stores both blobs, and discards the plaintext. It
cannot read what it holds. Neither can the broker relaying it. And
nothing is composed centrally — a connection string is assembled on the
machine that needs one — so no copy is ever minted in a shape nothing
tracks. `Compromise of a node is compromise of that node` (ADR 0004) is
now true of secrets, not only of identity.
Two files rather than one, because the mesh cannot compose a document
containing a value it discarded: `binds` carries the readable facts,
`secrets` carries the credential alone. The readable half stays readable
in the declaration; the secret half changes only when the secret does,
which makes restart-on precise. The provider gets a directory, one file
per consumer, for the same reason.
It is made once and kept — regenerating per declaration would restart
both ends on every push, and the password a provider was told to create
would never be the one its consumer was given. It is remade when either
end's sealing key changes, and both ends learn the new one in the same
push, so there is no window where half the mesh holds a dead credential.
Two tests found passing for the wrong reason, both caught because their
injection came back clean:
- the provider's copy was asserted non-empty, which reads the same
whichever column is selected. It now opens the blob with the
provider's own key.
- RotateSecret deleted and re-created; the re-create was dead, because
the next read makes one anyway. Removed, and a second path to the same
act is how two ends come to disagree.
And one real fault: three places built a declaration, and the one behind
`--json` predated credentials, so it silently produced a declaration
missing them — a difference between what `plan` showed and what anything
reading `--json` got. There is one path now.
jschoubben