The lab's diagnostics said it in one line: AUTH called without any
password configured for the default user. With an aclfile configured,
redis takes the default user from the file and quietly ignores
requirepass — so the empty seed this module shipped left the store
without any password at all, politely refusing the credential the mesh
had sealed for it.
And the file could never have worked here anyway: it was host-declared
content, which the host reconciles, so every re-apply would have wiped
what ACL SAVE wrote — a fight between two reconcilers with the tenants
as the ball.
So no file. requirepass alone does what it says, and durability moves
to the watch, which now checks the store and not only its inputs: a
restarted store comes back empty and is re-granted within a tick,
because reconciling is against reality, not against a diff of
instructions. A run that failed leaves last empty, so the next tick
retries instead of believing the inputs were handled.
The report carries the digest of the declaration it applied (mesh-host
8211d8b), and the mesh stores it beside the outcome. `reported` rows in
the status JSON now say `current`: whether the machine's last word
names the declaration last sent.
Not derivable from the timestamps beside it, which is why they were
not enough: an apply begun under the previous declaration reports
after the next send — newer, and still about the old words. The lab
lost exactly that race between one test's closing push and the next
test's opening one.
Empty digests — every host from before reports carried one — read as
not current, which errs toward waiting rather than toward asserting on
files that are not there yet.
The lab named both failures in one run: the store restarted forever on
a conf file it could not read, and the forge could not traverse into
the directory that held its files. Both are the same fault — a file the
mesh declares root-owned, consumed by a container process that dropped
to a uid the machine has never heard of.
The forge's data now belongs to 1000, the user its container runs as.
The store's conf, ACL file and data belong to 999, which is what redis
becomes after its entrypoint drops privileges. The package registry's
conf directory belongs to 10001, which writes htpasswd into it.
Made expressible by the host in the commit beside this one: an owner
may be numeric, because a container's user has no name on the machine.
The same shape as the four before them — a config directory of their
own, the shared library paths they actually touch, one owner and mode
across every sharer — which is the point of doing them together: five
manifests that differ only in name, port and which shelves they read
prove the shape is a shape and not a coincidence.
All pinned by real digests, resolved on this workstation today. The
catalogue stands at 27.
The shape they share is the interesting part: a media library is a fact
about the machine that several modules mount, so each declares exactly
the paths it touches, with one owner and mode across all of them. The
host reconciles a directory rather than creating it, so the second
module ensuring a path the first already ensured is maintenance, not a
fight — and ADR 0030 keeps a shared path alive when one of its sharers
is unassigned, because it holds what the mesh did not put there.
Plex runs on the machine's own network like home-assistant, and for the
same reason: discovery is the point. The other three publish, so the
mesh chooses their machine ports.
All pinned by real digests, resolved on this workstation today. The
catalogue stands at 22, of which the arrangement being replaced ran 95
— but its number counts workstation ricing and one-machine tooling
beside services, and only the services convert to manifests like these.
Nextcloud is the first consumer of two provisions at once: a database
from the mesh's postgres and primary storage in a bucket from the
mesh's own object store — which is how the arrangement being replaced
ran it, minus the bundled MariaDB it no longer needs. Every credential
in one env file the host writes; the manifest holds placeholders and
the mesh holds nothing readable.
Home automation runs on the machine's own network, because discovering
devices is the point and a bridge would hide them — so nothing is
published, the declared port is the bound port, and the rule set opens
exactly it. The case MachineSide was corrected for, in the catalogue.
Both pinned by real digests, resolved on this workstation today.
"Not waiting" says the declaration is current, not that the machine
finished applying it: the sent digest is recorded at send. So a test
that pushed, saw waiting clear, and asked the machine what it was
running found containers that did not exist yet — the certificate fix
made compositions stable, and the settling that used to fail first had
been hiding the gap behind it.
The mesh already held the missing half: every machine's last report,
with its time. It just was not in the JSON. `reported` now sets each
machine's last word beside when the current declaration went to it, and
"has it caught up" becomes a comparison of two timestamps the mesh
recorded itself — a report newer than the send means the machine acted
on what was sent; older means it is still working, which waiting alone
cannot distinguish.
Converted from the arrangement being replaced. The search engine brings
its own valkey on its own network — a sidecar is just a second
container resource. The time-series database initialises itself from
two generated secrets, and its data and config directories are declared
with the owner the image runs as. The package registry's configuration
is a declared file rather than a merged one, which is the position
16-module-coverage takes on config merging: the module knows its own
format because it wrote the rest of the file.
Two were read and deliberately not converted, which is worth recording
where the next person will look:
n8n builds a custom image, so it is a module with a repository rather
than a manifest in this catalogue — where a module's own code lives is
ADR 0037's question, and pretending otherwise here would prejudge it.
mosquitto authenticates from a hashed password file that only
mosquitto_passwd can write, and the mesh delivers plaintext sealed
files — so an honest conversion needs a small provisioner, the same
shape as the cache's. Without one, the manifest would compose a broker
nobody can log in to, which is exactly the kind of module that parses,
resolves, and stops on the machine.
All images pinned by real digests, resolved on this workstation today.
Converted from the arrangement being replaced, in its shapes rather
than theirs.
The registry is the manifest the lab already proved, promoted: names
its image by digest and is never built (04-ISSUES/029), provides the
artifact store, claims it once per machine.
Redis is the third provision after a database and a bucket, and the
first whose tenancy is a pattern in a shared keyspace rather than a
namespace something else enforces. Its provisioner mirrors the postgres
one's contract line for line — the manifest, the sealed per-consumer
files, the mark, the withdrawal of orphans — and speaks RESP directly:
five commands are needed, and a client library large enough to hide
them would be most of the program's size. A prefix Redis would read as
a pattern is refused, because the grant must mean what the manifest
said; grants are persisted with ACL SAVE, or said loudly, because a
cache that forgets its tenants on restart reports success until then.
Umami asks the mesh for its database and a generated app secret, and
carries no state of its own — the arrangement being replaced ran a
bundled second postgres beside it. Grafana keeps its dashboards in a
declared directory with the image's own owner. Both listen on 3000, as
does the forge — which is the mesh's port assignment earning its keep.
Traefik is deliberately not converted: the mesh's route provider is
mesh-route-proxy, which speaks route grants natively, and a traefik
that consumed them would be an adapter nobody has written pretending
to be a conversion.
All images pinned by real digests, resolved on this workstation today.
Every signing carries a fresh random serial, so a mesh that signed per
composition composed a different declaration every time it was asked
what a machine should be. Every machine carrying a certificate then
stood eternally "waiting" — pushed seconds ago and already behind — and
the forge test, the first to wait for settledness on such a machine,
failed four runs in a row wearing three other faults' clothes.
Found live on a kept mesh, which is what settled it: two plans seconds
apart, identical to the byte but for one serial, in the certificate
file. Deduction had four theories; the diff had one line.
The keeping columns had existed since the serving key's migration —
"and what was issued for it" — and were written by nothing, the same
shape ReleasePorts was found in this morning.
Kept beside the serving key it certifies, and it stands while the name,
the key and the clock agree: a node rejoining with a new key or renamed
gets a fresh signing, exactly as if nothing were kept, and so does one
whose certificate is into its last stretch of life. The port's rule and
the secret's, applied to the third thing composed fresh each time.
Three faults, one file split. All from reading, all verified to bite.
Unassign now releases the module's ports. ReleasePorts existed, said
"for when it is unassigned" in its own comment, and was called by
nothing — so a fixed port stayed claimed in the name of a module that
was gone, and the next module needing it was refused by a ghost.
Kept-once-chosen is a promise about a module that is still here.
MachineSide reads addressed mappings. "127.0.0.1:8080:80" was split at
the first colon, "127.0.0.1" failed to parse as a port, and the mapping
was silently skipped — putting the filter back on the declared port,
the exact fault the function was written to end. The machine side is
the second-from-last part, which is the reading the host already
applies, and the substrate bundle writes that shape today.
An allocation race answers in the mesh's words. Two concurrent picks of
the same port used to surface as a Postgres constraint violation,
verbatim. The table has two keys, so the collision is one of two facts:
the racer was this same assignment — then its answer is the answer,
kept-once-chosen does not care who chose — or another module took the
machine port, and an unfixed pick is simply made again against the
moved free list. A fixed port that lost the race is refused by name.
Told apart by re-reading the row, not by the constraint's name, so this
does not couple to the migration's spelling.
And the artifact-store cycle tests moved to bootstrap_cycle_test.go;
machineside_test.go had quietly become three subjects.
Confining allocation to the push path took `plan` with it, and `plan`
belongs on the other side: it is a person asking what a push would do to
one named machine, so the port it shows and the secret it seals must be
the ones a push would use. Both are kept once chosen, so showing
numbers a later push would replace answers a question nobody asked.
Caught by the lab: composing the real modules stopped producing
postgres's sealed superuser, because nothing had minted it and the
read-only path correctly declined to.
The line is not question versus command. It is a person asking once
about one machine, against the mesh asking continuously about all of
them — the second is what hung, and the second is what reads.
Refused where it is written: a module that provides `artifact-store` and
also builds artifacts asks the mesh to put an artifact into the thing
that artifact is needed to create. Building publishes to the store, and
the builder will not start without one — "a built artifact nobody can
fetch is not built".
This is the question the substrate record asks of every candidate: can
it grant itself the thing it provides? The store cannot create its own
database, the broker cannot create its own virtual host, and a registry
cannot grant itself a repository. The first two are why they are in the
bundle. This is the same sentence, unenforced.
So such a module names its image, exactly as the bundle names the three
a first node starts from. One that wants an interface or a tool server
beside it is a second module, mirrored the ordinary way once the first
is running — a real limit, and better said here than discovered on a
mesh new enough that nobody is watching it.
Refused at the manifest because the alternative is a build that never
returns.
The provision name is now a constant. A string compared in one place is
a convention; a string a rule turns on is a fact.
object-store.json and minio.json described the same thing: same image,
same provision at the same scope, same provisioner. Not two
implementations a person could choose between — one module written
twice. Assigning both to a node would have collided on `s3-bucket`.
It exists because it was written first, to pair with photos.json for the
README's worked edge, and minio.json was the fuller version of the same
module written later. Nobody removed the first.
The pair test keeps its point and now reads the surviving one. Checked
across the rest: this was the only duplicate.
`status` hung. It composes a declaration for every node to answer *is
this machine running what I would send it*, and composing one assigns
each module a machine port — so the question wrote to the database, and
wrote to the same rows as the machine it was asking about.
`port_assignment` is unique on (node, machine). Two transactions
inserting the same port do not race, they queue: the second waits on the
index until the first commits. A status polled every two seconds while a
node applies is two writers on those rows, and the poll stopped
returning rather than returning something wrong — which is the better
failure of the two, and still a failure.
The latent version of this was there before anything polled: two
compositions running at once could both allocate.
So allocation belongs to the send path alone. The mesh chooses a port
when it commits to sending one; every other caller reads what was
chosen. A module with nothing assigned has never been sent, which is
precisely what "waiting" means — the read needs no number to be right
about that, and inventing one would make the answer worse.
Named rather than passed as a bare bool: at three call sites, `true` and
`false` say nothing about which of these two things is meant.
Checked by the lab, which now polls status throughout an apply.
The rule was right about data and wrong about everything else. The
builder mounts the container runtime's socket, which is not its data,
does not belong to it, and must not be declared as one of its
directories — and the check refused the builder's own manifest.
Caught by the lab, though not honestly: the run was already going when
this went in, so the builder binary was rebuilt mid-run with the check
compiled into it and the failure was mine, not the mesh's. Confirmed
against the manifest directly rather than inferred from the log.
What it was protecting is real and stands — the fourteen mounts are all
declared. But enforcing it needs a way to tell "the directory my data
lives in" from "a machine facility I was granted", and the mesh has no
vocabulary for the second. `capabilities` is the closest thing and does
not name paths. That is a design decision, so it goes back to
04-ISSUES/026 rather than being invented here to make a check pass.
The check that every real manifest still parses is kept. It costs
nothing and it is how the next attempt at this finds out sooner.
Closes the half of 04-ISSUES/026 that would otherwise come back. The
fourteen mounts across the forge, the mail system, the store and the
object store are all declared now — but nothing said they had to be, so
they were right by coincidence and the next volume added would not be.
A bind mount whose source does not exist is created by the container
runtime, as root, with a mode it picks. So `owner` and `mode` — which
exist precisely so a module can say who its data belongs to — were
silently not applied to the only directories holding data.
And the rule written for exactly this case did not reach them. A
directory the mesh declared and no longer wants is kept, not removed,
when it holds anything the mesh did not put there (ADR 0030). That is
the answer to *what happens to my data when a module goes away*, and it
is written in terms of declared directories: an undeclared one sits
outside it, because the mesh does not know it is there.
Refused where it is written rather than on the machine, which cannot
tell the difference — by the time the host sees the mount it is being
asked to make a directory, which it is perfectly able to do. The fault
is in the manifest, so it is named at the manifest. Same argument as the
action refusal directly above it.
A path under a declared directory counts as declared, as do the files a
module already names: its own secrets, its grants, what it receives.
Every real manifest is checked to still parse, and the refusal bites.
The lab caught this: a module declaring a port and running no container
had its rule set opened on 20000 while its service sat on 9101. The
firewall reported success and blocked the thing it was told to admit,
which is the precise failure the filtering comment warns about, arrived
at from the other side.
Assignment was applied to every declared port. But a container's mapping
is the thing that translates, and where there is none the software binds
what it binds — the mesh choosing a number does not move the service, it
only makes the mesh wrong about where it is.
The declaration side already knew this: publishedOn rewrites container
ports and nothing else. Filtering did not, so the two disagreed about
the same fact. MachineSide is now the one derivation both follow.
It also fixes a second case nobody had hit yet: a mapping the manifest
wrote itself, like the mail system's 7080:80. That is passed through
untouched when composing, so assigning it a machine port would have
opened a rule on a port the container does not publish. Either side of
such a mapping now names it, and the host side is the answer — a module
may read `listens` as what its software binds or as what the machine
exposes, and both readings want the same number.
Recorded either way, assigned or not: the map means where this module's
port is on this machine, and every reader needs that answer regardless
of who chose it.
Tests bite — making it always assignable reproduces the lab failure.
The other half of ADR 0038, and what 04-ISSUES/028 was actually about.
A module can now avoid colliding with another module; until this it
could not avoid colliding with the mesh itself.
The substrate is not a module. A node raises it from the bundle it
carries before any mesh exists, so the control plane had never heard of
the store, the broker, or its own container — and handed a database
module 5432, which the store already had.
So the machine says. The host records what each resource binds,
distinguishing what it carried from what the mesh sent — a distinction
that already existed so the two never remove each other — and reports
the carried ones. The node states and this context writes, which is the
shape of every message between them.
What the declaration binds, not what is open. A machine's open ports are
a moving target, and assigning around them would mean a port that was
free when it was asked for and taken when it was used.
Replaced whole each time rather than merged: a machine that gave a port
back must be believed about that too, and a set that only grows keeps a
port reserved for something no longer there.
Tested against a real database, and the tests bite — removing the check
hands the module 20000, which the machine had said it holds.
novox/hq ADR 0038. A module cannot choose a port: it is written once and
assigned anywhere, so any number it picks is a guess about a machine it
has never seen. A database module met the mesh's own store on 5432 and
was told, by a container runtime three layers down, that the port was
already allocated.
The number used to appear three times in every module — the rule set,
what a consumer is told, and what the runtime publishes — agreeing only
because one person wrote all three. Now it appears once, in `listens`,
and the other two are derived: the container publishes `20000:5432`, the
consumer is told 20000, and the rule set opens 20000.
An assignment is made once and kept, as a credential is. A port that
moved on every declaration would restart both ends each time and hand a
consumer a number that was true when it was read.
Ports the protocol fixes — mail on 25, submission on 587, DNS on 53 —
say so, and are then claims: one holder per machine, and the second is
refused by name at assignment. That is the mechanism the mesh already
has for what is singular on a machine, pointed at ports.
A mapping written the long way is left exactly as it is. Some things
must be pinned by hand, and quietly overruling somebody who wrote both
halves would be worse than not offering the short form.
Still open, and known: the substrate is not a module, so the mesh has
never heard of its own store and cannot yet assign around it. That is
what 028 will still be about after this.
This is what stopped the forge. The host refused the whole declaration:
resource "postgres.server": a container does not use "restart-on",
and it is set. Refused rather than ignored
`restart-on` belongs to a service. I put it on containers this morning
so one would pick up a rotated credential — nine times across seven
modules — and nothing between the manifest and the machine said a word.
The control plane composed it happily; the parser accepted it; the
manifest tests passed. The only thing that knew was the host, five steps
downstream, and hearing from it cost a seventeen-minute run.
The host was right twice over. It refused, and it refused *everything*,
because applying the parts it understood would leave a machine that
looks configured and is not. One misplaced key therefore stops a module
dead, which is the correct severity and an argument for catching it
where it is written.
So the shapes and their keys are now written down here and checked. They
are duplicated from another repository deliberately — this is its wire
format, like the shape of a grant file — and a contract with two copies
and no check is a contract until somebody edits one.
What this does not fix is why I reached for it: a container cannot
follow a file. Filed separately.
novox/hq 04-ISSUES/026. Four modules mounted fourteen host paths that no
resource declared — the mail spool, the databases, the object store's
data. Each would be created by the container runtime as root, with a
mode nobody chose, so `owner` and `mode` went unapplied on exactly the
directories that matter.
The worse half: a directory the mesh declared and no longer wants is
kept rather than removed when it holds anything the mesh did not put
there. That rule is the answer to what happens to data when a module
goes away, and it is written in terms of declared directories. An
undeclared one is not covered. So the one rule guarding against data
loss reached the configuration directories, which are cheap to lose, and
missed the data directories, which are why the rule exists.
The cause is worth naming. These manifests were written by reading the
arrangement being replaced and carrying its compose files across —
service, image, ports, volumes, environment. The container shape can
express all of that, which is what made the transliteration feel like
progress. A shape that can express a compose file gets filled in like
one, and a volume line borrowed from compose declares no owner, no mode
and no intent.
Declared parent-first, because the host applies in the order written and
does not sort. The check is mechanical now, because a person comparing
volumes against directories by hand is the process that produced this.
Still open, and bigger: whether these paths are where a module's data
should live at all. They were inherited whole, and they decide what a
person backs up.
novox/hq 04-ISSUES/025. Every image reference in every example module
was sixty-four zeros — eighteen of them across five modules. Each
parsed, resolved, and composed into a declaration a host accepts, and
none could ever have started: the machine reaches `docker pull` and
stops. That is why those modules were written and not running, and no
check saw it because every check passed.
The host validates the shape of a reference and nothing more, which is
correct: verifying a digest exists means reaching a registry, and that
is the one thing a host must never have to do. So the last place that
could catch this is the wrong place to try.
The guard therefore sits where a declaration is composed, not where a
manifest is parsed. A file in a repository is allowed to await a pin —
the design already says the manifest in a repository names artifacts
while the manifest the mesh holds names digests, and the bundle works
exactly that way. What must never happen is a placeholder reaching a
machine, and composing is the last moment before one does.
Twelve third-party images resolved to real digests without pulling
anything, which is also the mechanism the open issue needs. Two
discoveries came free: mailu publishes to ghcr rather than Docker Hub,
so seven references named repositories that do not exist at all; and it
renamed roundcube to webmail, so that one would have failed even with
the right registry.
What stays a placeholder is the mesh's own provisioner images, which
genuinely have no digest until built and pushed — the bundle's problem,
legitimately unresolved here. The stand-in consumer now stands in with
a real image rather than an invented one.
The lab is pointed at a path for the builder it should write, and I
pointed it at the repository root instead of build/, which .gitignore
already covers. Two of today's commits carry the compiled binary as a
result.
Untracked and ignored by name, so the same slip does not land it again.
I wrote that a test asserts the control plane's placeholder expression
and the host's still agree. None does, and none in this repository could
— a unit test here can only assert what this repository already
believes.
That is precisely the thing this project refuses to tolerate: a stated
rule with no way to check it, which costs more than no rule because
people believe it. Written by me, today, in the same file that closes a
gap of the same kind.
What actually proves it is the lab, and the comment now says so.
Found by reading the manifests rather than by running them. Two of the
provisioner images the examples name had no way to be produced: the
object store's had a Dockerfile and no target, and Keycloak's did not
exist at all — no image, no Dockerfile, no program.
A module naming an image nothing produces resolves, plans, pushes and
stops on the machine at `docker pull`, which is the fault arriving as
far from its cause as it can get.
The object store's target is added. Keycloak's provisioner is removed
from its manifest, because writing a manifest for a program that does
not exist is the same mistake as the .env files: it parses, it resolves,
and it could never work.
That makes keycloak's manifest true about today — a server the mesh
runs, with its database and its admin credential — and it makes the gap
loud. Keycloak no longer claims to provide oidc-client, so a consumer
asking for one is refused at plan time by name, rather than resolving
cleanly and never having a client created.
The check covers only images beginning `mesh-`. Postgres and the rest
come from a registry and are somebody else's to build; what this bounds
is the set this repository is responsible for and might forget.
The keycloak check was written while keycloak was the module being
worked on, which is how a check ends up proving one thing about one
file. It now runs over every example that requires something, and asks
the two questions that matter for all of them: that no ${bound:...}
reached the machine as a value, and that anything named PASSWORD is
still a hole only the host can fill.
The first is the one worth having. A placeholder written through is read
as a value by whatever parses the file — a connection to a host called
"${bound:postgres-database:at}" — and the failure names neither the
module nor the mesh.
Modules whose requirements nothing in the examples answers are logged
and passed over, because that is a fact about the example set rather
than about them.
A contribution that is not a credential grant — a module offering
something to another on its own machine — has nobody to be identified
to, and was carrying an empty `as`. A field that is always present and
usually empty teaches a reader to ignore it, including when it is not.
novox/hq 04-ISSUES/023. A consumer was given its password, the address,
the port and where its credential lives, and still could not connect —
the user name was invented by the provisioner and recorded nowhere, and
the rest sat in a JSON binding that a program reading KEY=value cannot
use.
Both halves have the same cause: the mesh knew something and did not say
it.
**Who a consumer is, said once.** The provisioner used to derive
mesh_<node>_<module> and that string existed nowhere else — not in the
control plane, not in the binding, and above all not at the consumer,
which has to present it. Now the mesh derives it once and sends it to
both ends, so they agree by construction rather than by two conventions
that were the same on the day they were written. The provisioners refuse
to invent one if the mesh says nothing, because falling back to a name
of their own would create a role the consumer would never guess and
everything would report success.
**Bound values reach the file that needs them.** ${bound:provision:key}
is the symmetric twin of the sealed placeholder, and simpler: these
values are not secret, so the control plane fills them in before sending
and the host gains no field and learns no format. It stays
name-agnostic — at, as and from are true of any provision, and every
other key comes from what the provider said it serves.
The asymmetry it removes was backwards. The secret is the hard case,
because the mesh must not be able to read it, and the secret was the
part that already arrived.
Keycloak and Gitea now produce complete connections, asserted from the
manifests on disk rather than from fixtures: every part filled, no
placeholder surviving as a value, and the password still a hole only the
host can close. Three faults injected, each caught.
A module may not declare an action: the link may not carry a command to
run, and that bound is what limits a compromised control plane to shapes
it cannot turn into arbitrary code (novox/hq ADR 0005). The host
enforces it, correctly and in the right place.
But a module's resources reach a machine over the link, so a manifest
carrying an action was accepted here, stored, resolved, planned and
pushed — and refused on the machine, in the host's log, with nothing
connecting it back to the manifest that caused it.
The rule held. It was just unusable, which is the same shape as the
network shape earlier today: the refusal was right, arrived far from its
cause, and nobody was reading the log.
The refusal names the rule and what to do instead, because "you may not"
with no alternative is where a module author stops.
Found while checking a claim I had written in the coverage document —
that a module cannot declare one. It could; it just could not deliver
it. The document is corrected.
Every one of these declared `own-secrets` pointing at a path called
`.env` and then mounted it as `env-file`. The file's whole content is
the password. Docker reads that as a malformed line and the container
starts with no password set — which is not a failure to start, it is a
service running with the wrong credential.
They parsed, they resolved, and none of them could ever have worked.
That is what a manifest checked only by the parser buys.
Each now keeps the sealed file as what it is — a password, alone — and
declares a file beside it whose content says ${secret:name}. The host
fills the hole on the machine, which is the only place both halves
exist. The provisioners mount the bare file, because they read a
password file and always did.
Two tests, both driven from the manifests on disk rather than from
fixtures: every ${secret:x} must name something the module declared, and
nothing may read a bare password file as an env file. Injecting the
shipped bug reproduces it word for word.
Keycloak, Gitea and Mailu still cannot connect to their databases, for
the reason in 04-ISSUES/023 — the user name is the provisioner's
invention and the bound values cannot reach a config file. Their own
credentials are right now; that half was independent and is done.
novox/hq 04-ISSUES/022. A credential was keyed by provision, consumer
node and provider node, so "who is asking" was answered by naming a
host. The node this mesh exists to take over runs eight modules against
one database server.
The symptom had two halves and only one was loud. The provider refused,
naming the modules and explaining they would share one credential, which
reads as a decision rather than a limit. The consumer did not refuse: it
resolved cleanly, wrote one module's credential file and left the others
absent — a service that starts and cannot authenticate, with nothing
saying why. That is 021 again on a different axis.
Three modules wanting one database produced one need, carrying whichever
module mentioned it first, because the resolution walk is a work-list
over names. The fan-out now happens in one place, after the walk. The
record path already did this correctly and said why: a consumer here is
a module on a machine. It is the same rule.
Downstream: the secret's key gains the consuming module, the grant file
is named after both halves, needs are matched by provision and module
rather than provision alone, and the provisioners name the role and the
access key after the module. The refusal in ContributionsTo is gone
because there is nothing left to refuse.
Worth stating plainly: without that refusal, gitea's login would have
opened keycloak's database. From the provisioner's side it created
exactly what it was asked to create.
Existing secrets are discarded rather than backfilled. They cannot say
which module they were for, and a secret is remade and delivered to both
ends on the next push — so this costs one rotation and invents nothing.
Also guards the role name against PostgreSQL's 63-byte truncation, which
is a notice rather than an error and would reintroduce exactly this
collision at a length nobody tests.
Three faults injected — the fan-out removed, needs matched by name
alone, the grant file named after the machine — each caught.
The gap that stopped keycloak and gitea from starting. A granted
credential arrives as a file whose entire content is the password, which
is what a program reading a password file wants — and most programs do
not read one. They read KEY=value, or a JSON document with the token at
an attribute inside it. A module in that position could be handed the
bare value or nothing, and both are useless.
The host has been able to do this all along: content with ${secret:name}
in it, sealed values beside it, substitution on the machine, which is
the only place both halves exist. Nothing filled the values in, so the
hole could be written and never closed and the host refused the file.
That refusal was correct and the feature was unreachable.
A module reaches its own secrets and the credentials it was granted —
both things it wrote in its own manifest — and nothing else. Naming
another module's is refused: two modules on one machine are as separate
as two on different machines, and letting one read the other's
credential by guessing a name would end that to save writing a file.
Filling runs after settings, which is the whole reason it sits where it
does. A setting is how a placeholder gets into a JSON document in the
first place — the desktop client that reads its token from an attribute,
not an environment variable. Before the merge that file's content is
"{}" and asks for nothing.
Tested through Declaration rather than through the helper. Three times
in this repository a test asserted on a helper while the code calling it
was wrong, and each time the injected fault stayed silent. Three faults
injected here — the call removed, the call moved before settings, and
the module boundary widened — each caught by the test meant for it.
novox/hq 04-ISSUES/021. Two modules where one provided what the other
required, on one node, resolved cleanly with zero needs: no credential
was made, the consumer's secret file was never written, and whatever
read it would fail somewhere else entirely. Nothing was refused and
nothing was reported.
The world a node resolves against is every OTHER node, so a provider on
the same machine never became a Needed, and the credential loop walks
Needs. Every step reasonable, the sum a silent gap.
It survived because everything proven until now was cross-machine —
the interesting case for a mesh and the rare one in practice. The first
module to want a database on its own machine was the first real one.
The assumption underneath was that a local consumer needs no credential,
which holds for a process reaching a unix socket where the system can
vouch for the caller. It does not hold for containers, which is how
nearly everything here runs: the consumer reaches the provider over TCP
from its own container and the database asks for a password exactly as
it would from another machine. **The machine stops being a trust
boundary once both ends are containers.**
A brokered provision answered here is now a need naming this node, and
carries what the provider serves — which a local provider never
contributes through the world. A name nothing grants is unchanged: a
shell answered here is answered, and nothing more is owed. Both
directions tested, both injections bite.
novox/hq ADR 0035: one implementation, several surfaces, and a surface
holds no decisions. The act of assigning — including that an assignment
which does not resolve is kept and still refused — moved into acts.go,
and the command line now calls it too. Two surfaces, one refusal, in the
same words.
It will not run without --issuer, and refuses at start rather than per
request so it is found by whoever ran it rather than by whoever finds
it. There is no flag that removes the check.
The authenticator is honest about what it is: no token can be verified
until an identity provider exists, because that is a module and none is
running, so every request is refused and told that the command line
still works. A surface that functioned without authentication would be
one somebody left running — and the board this stands behind is
published on a public name.
Four refusals, four tests. The last one first asserted "not 200", which
passed because a request with no database fails at the store anyway — it
proved nothing about whether the input was checked. It now asserts the
specific refusal, and bites when the check is removed.
The command refused every real invocation. Go's flag package stops
parsing at the first non-flag argument, so with the positionals first —
the order that reads correctly — `--from -` stayed among them and the
count check rejected it.
The host's own parser carries a note about this exact fault, and the
version it describes is worse: there a flag somebody passed was silently
ignored and the command succeeded anyway. This one at least refused.
The tests did not catch it because every case in them was a rejection.
The command was broken in the only way that matters — it refused what it
is for — and the suite was green. The lab found it at the first call.
Two tests now: the helper, and the command itself with a --from naming a
file that is not there, so the complaint must be about the file rather
than about usage. The second exists because injecting against the first
stayed silent: testing the helper alone left the command free to ignore
it entirely.
The entry point for adopting something already running, and the half
that was missing. The store has carried the distinction since the
beginning — a module secret records whether it was `made` or `accepted`,
and refuses to invent a replacement for the second — and
AcceptSecretForModule existed, with exactly one caller: the broker
account issued to a build machine. Nothing else could write one.
Without it every module secret is generated, which against a database
that already exists puts 32 random bytes where a working credential was.
The machine applies it, reports success, and whatever reads it fails to
authenticate somewhere else entirely, with the mesh insisting the secret
was delivered — which it was.
The value is read from a file or from standard input, never from an
argument: a value on the command line is in the shell's history and in
the process list. Same path a model-access key already takes, and no new
dependency — the first version reached for x/term and the existing one
needed nothing.
Sealed on the way in, plaintext discarded, and not printed back. The
only difference from a generated secret is where the value came from.
Two rules with a test each, and the second is the one that would have
been got wrong: only the line ending is removed, never surrounding
space. Trimming both ends is the obvious thing and would deliver a
password chosen with a leading space as a different password, silently.
Both were briefly untested for different reasons — the trimming lived
where no test could reach it, and then a -run filter matched neither
test. Extracted, and injected against the whole suite.
Work breakdown 1.4. The mesh's own authority certifies internal names
and always did; a name reachable from outside needs one the world
already trusts, and there was no ACME anywhere in this repository.
Uses acme/autocert from x/crypto, which was already a dependency — one
indirect addition (x/net, for idna) and no new direct one.
Three things worth more than the feature:
**Staging is the default** (novox/hq 04-ISSUES/004). Production issuance
is rate-limited per domain and per account and does not replenish
quickly. Defaulting to production would leave the safe path depending on
remembering to opt out, on exactly the work most likely to iterate. A
staging certificate is trusted by no browser, so the mistake announces
itself on the first request rather than a fortnight later.
**A certificate is only asked for on a name the mesh routes here.**
Without that policy, anything that can reach the port and send a name
triggers an order for it — a scan becomes a stream of failed orders
against the account's rate limit, and the proxy looks healthy
throughout. What it may certify is what it was told to serve.
**A private issuer is trusted by naming a file, never by skipping
verification.** Skip would still apply on the day this points at a
public issuer, and nothing would say so.
TLS is opt-in: without TLS_LISTEN the proxy serves plain HTTP exactly as
before, which is what an internal-only mesh wants. With it and no cache,
it refuses rather than defaulting — every restart would otherwise order
new certificates, silently, until the rate limit says it does not.
Work breakdown 1.2. Two sessions run on the control-plane node — the
node's own and the mesh's (novox/hq ADR 0026) — so a machine stopped
being a usable answer to "whose licence is this".
14-model-access.md called per-module-per-machine "a step toward it and
not it", and that is true of a worker: many run on one machine from one
module, so the pair cannot name them apart. It is not true of a session.
The two sessions are two modules — the same mechanism started in
different context roots, and a context root is what a module delivers —
so (node, module) tells them apart and nothing needed adding.
Checked rather than argued: different licences on one machine, each with
its own key, and a session on no licence is not handed the other's.
The third test exists because a fault injection stayed silent. The first
two put the sessions on different licences, so the licence alone
disambiguates and the module argument is never load-bearing — removing
it from the query changed nothing and everything still passed. Two
sessions on the SAME licence is the case that needs the pair to be the
identity: releasing one must leave the other, and a machine-shaped
answer takes both.
Manifests for a provider and a consumer, so the contract can be read
rather than only exercised through a lab fixture that stages the grants
by hand.
Checked as a pair rather than separately, because two manifests that
only ever parse alone are two manifests nobody has held against each
other. The test asserts the names match, that each side says where it
wants to be told, and that the consumer contributes the key the
provisioner actually reads.
That last one is the trap worth having a test for: a consumer
contributing "name" — which is exactly what a database consumer
contributes — resolves cleanly, deploys, and then fails on the machine
with "asked for a bucket and did not name it". Nothing in that message
points back at the manifest that caused it. Both mistakes were made
while writing these two files.
Phase 1.1 of the work breakdown. The finding that shaped it came before
any code: **the control plane special-cases nothing.** provides,
requires, contributes and grants are entirely name-agnostic, so asking
for a bucket needed no change to the mesh at all — only a provider that
answers. What was missing was the last step, where something on the
machine turns a delivered secret into a key that works.
Named `s3-bucket` by ADR 0027's test: a consumer's code is written
against the S3 API, and swapping one store for another does not break
it, so the coupling is to the protocol rather than the product — which
is what the substrate design already said about AMQP, S3 and OCI.
Proven on a real store, 7 assertions: a generated secret becomes a
working key; rotation makes the new one work and the old one stop; a
consumer that goes away loses its key; a key nobody here made is left
alone; a manifest naming a credential that was never written is refused;
an unusable bucket name is refused naming the consumer that asked.
**And the one a database does not need.** One PostgreSQL server holds
separate databases and the product enforces the boundary; one object
store holds every bucket behind one endpoint, so a consumer being unable
to reach another's is a policy somebody wrote. A policy granting
arn:aws:s3:::* would pass every other test in the file, so the unit
tests assert what the policy does NOT say.
It drives the vendor's command line rather than an SDK: the admin API
encrypts its request bodies, which is why a separate admin library
exists, and pulling that in would add a system-metrics dependency tree
to a repository with none in order to create a user.
A migration refused when the record and the files disagree is the
property that makes a schema trustworthy months later. The test asserted
it without naming the decision, so an audit of which decisions are
defended could not see it. novox/hq ADR 0017.
Provisions were named after roles: provides "database", requires
"database". Nothing distinguished engines, so a module written against
PostgreSQL could be matched to a provider of SQL Server, resolve as
satisfied, deploy, and fail on its first query — with nothing
connecting that error back to a match made elsewhere by something that
believed it had done its job.
The failure is in the direction that hides. Refusing on ambiguity
exists precisely so this does not happen, and the generic name walked
around it: with one provider of each name nothing is ambiguous, so
nothing is asked.
How it got in: every resolver test had exactly one provider per name,
so no mismatch was expressible and none was caught. The fixtures agreed
with the design — the same fault as the imagined test output in
04-ISSUES/005, at the level of a name.
Refused rather than documented, because the old naming *was* the
documented convention. Providing database/db/sql/sql-database is now a
parse error naming what to write instead.
The rule is about coupling, not specificity everywhere: route and
resolver stay role-named, because a consumer genuinely cannot tell
which proxy answered. novox/hq ADR 0027.
dnsmasq read /etc/resolv.conf to find where to forward. Whatever points a
machine at the mesh writes its own address into that file — so dnsmasq's
upstream was dnsmasq, and every query it could not answer locally looped. Its
receive queue filled with 15KB of them and every lookup on the machine hung,
which is why this arrived as a thirty-second timeout rather than a wrong
answer.
It needs no upstream at all: the asking module routes only the mesh's suffix
here and leaves everything else where the machine already sent it. And it names
none, because choosing one would send every query this machine makes somewhere
nobody agreed to.
Also corrected: the comment claiming it takes only 127.0.0.55. Listening on a
loopback address makes dnsmasq take the rest of loopback with it, 127.0.0.1
included — which is what claiming `the-dns-port` already says, and which the
comment was quietly denying. That is the same comfortable claim as ".54 is
free", in the same file, made twice.
It sat beside `secrets` — where a *provision's* credential lands on a consumer.
Both were name-to-path, both held something secret, and the names
distinguished them not at all. Reaching for the wrong one parsed cleanly and
failed somewhere else entirely, which is the shape of fault this whole design
exists to prevent, sitting in the manifest format.
The axis that separates them is not how secret they are — both are — but
whose. `secrets` is keyed by the provision it is for and belongs to a
relationship with another machine. `own-secrets` is keyed by a name the module
chose and belongs to nobody else.
A manifest using the old name is told the new one rather than refused with
"unknown field": whoever wrote it knew what they meant, and the mesh knows what
it is called now. An invented key is still refused as one rather than guessed
at.
Found by auditing the 19 manifest fields for whether any could be mistaken for
another. This was the only pair that could — and while checking it, a second
instance of the same collision turned up one layer down: `Manifest.Needs` and
`Resolution.Needs` were different concepts sharing a name in Go. The rename
separates those too.
`127.0.0.54` is systemd-resolved's DNS *proxy* stub. The module asserted it was
free, in a comment that read as reasoned — "not .53, that is
systemd-resolved's" — and it was simply wrong: resolved holds both. dnsmasq
could not create the socket and never started.
Nothing in a unit test could have caught it. They checked the module names an
address and that the asking modules point at the same one, and all of that
passed while the daemon could not start. Only a machine knows which addresses
are spare, which is the argument for proving a module that asserts facts about
machines on a machine, before believing the assertions.
So it moves to .55, and says what that is: a convention, not a reservation. If
a future systemd takes it, this line changes and nothing else does.
The tests now derive the address from the serving module and check the two
asking modules agree with it, rather than naming it a fourth time — that fourth
place is the one nobody would think to change.
And the lab assigns `resolved-split-dns` rather than `resolv-conf`: those
machines run systemd-resolved, which owns the file. The two claim the same
thing precisely so the wrong choice is a refusal rather than a fight, and
picking the wrong one was testing the fight.
Working out what a machine should be reaches the identity context for its
certificate and the licence context for its model access. Both were opened —
and waited on — inside functions called for every node in a push. Two machines
hid it. Fifty would be fifty connect-and-wait cycles for data that does not
change while the push runs.
So a command holds what it has open, and passes it. Each context is opened on
first use rather than up front, because most commands need one and paying to
reach three would be the same waste from the other side.
The contexts stay separate, which is the point: this is one struct holding
three connections to three databases, not one connection to a shared one. No
context reaches another's store, and each still holds only its own credential
(novox/hq ADR 0008).
A pure move again — the gate is green before and after, and no test changed.
2,769 lines and 59 functions, holding command parsing, store opening,
resolution, the board, rotation, licences, builds and status rendering.
Nothing in it was wrong. It grew because appending was always the cheapest next
step, and no single edit was the one that should have been a new file.
That is exactly how novox/hq ADR 0001 records `hal/sdk` reaching 155 files and
34,636 lines — "containing code from every context", with each addition
avoiding a cycle and none of them the mistake. This is the same shape at 8% of
the size, which is why it is worth doing now rather than noting.
Eight files, along boundaries that already existed: what a machine is; the
private network; the catalogue; working out what one machine should be; sending
it; builds; the three questions; and reaching each context's store. main.go
keeps what a main is for — parsing arguments and dispatching.
A pure move. No behaviour changed, no test changed, and the gate is green
before and after — which is the only thing that makes a refactor this size
safe to do in one commit.
The host does not sort, so the order written here is the order a machine
applies. Selection walks outward from what was assigned, which puts a consumer
before the thing it pulled in — and a service that reads a file another module
writes then starts before the file exists.
It fails, and the next reconcile fixes it. That is the worst shape a fault can
take: what gets remembered is that it works, and nobody looks again. It is
04-ISSUES/013 one level up from where that was found — there, the mesh's own
computed files came after a module's resources; here, a whole module comes
after the one that needed it.
Nothing had hit it because no module until now both required something with
resources of its own and had a resource depending on it. Writing the resolver
module was what made it reachable, and it would have shown up as dnsmasq
failing once on every fresh machine and working ever after.
Unrelated modules keep the order selection gave them — assigned first, then
what they pulled in. That order is meaningful, and reshuffling it would make
every declaration's diff unreadable for no gain.
Two modules requiring each other are both applied rather than refused: a cycle
is not a machine that cannot work, and refusing would make a cooperating pair
impossible to assign.
Three manifests and the rule that keeps them apart. Serving and asking are
genuinely different roles, and systemd-resolved can only do the second — it
cannot answer a wildcard, it routes the mesh's suffix to something that can. A
module that treated them as one role could not work, which is the mistake worth
naming rather than discovering.
So `the-dns-port` and `the-resolver-configuration` are two claims. A machine
gets one of each, and two of either is refused by the mesh rather than fought
over on the machine — which is what ADR 0009's table meant by listing resolvers
beside the seat and pid 1. That table names the resource `/etc/resolv.conf`,
which is what it is; a claim is a name in the catalogue's own form, and the
catalogue refuses the path as one.
Neither module knows anything about the machine it is on, which is what lets
them be static manifests: they name `mesh0` and `127.0.0.54`, both chosen by
the mesh, rather than an address only that machine has. Not 127.0.0.1 and not
127.0.0.53 — taking either would be a module claiming something it did not say
it claims.
A service can now reflect a file another module put on the machine, written
`<module>.<id>`. The resolver has to restart when the mesh rewrites the names;
without it, it would serve the names it started with for ever, with every
machine that joined afterwards unreachable and every check passing.
Services are named under the machine they run on — postgres.novox.internal,
plex.ace.internal. The first label is the service and the rest is the node, so
what has to resolve is anything under a node's name. What routes it once it
arrives is a proxy's concern and stays separate.
A hosts file cannot do that. It answers exact names, and a wildcard there would
mean writing down every service in advance — which is the enumeration the
arrangement exists to avoid. novox/hq 08-connectivity named this exact case as
the trigger for needing a resolver rather than a file, and it is the first
thing to meet it.
The mesh writes the data and runs no daemon. A resolver is third-party
software, and third-party software runs on the mesh rather than being of it
(ADR 0001): the mesh has no business shipping one, choosing which one, or
knowing its configuration language. What only the mesh can know is which
machines exist and where they are. A module that runs a resolver requires what
this provides and reads one file, so swapping the daemon changes that module
and nothing here.
Separate from names rather than part of them: a machine with no container
runtime can still have a hosts file, and folding them together would take exact
names away from a machine that cannot run a daemon in order to give it a
wildcard it cannot use either.
A machine with no address is left out. A wildcard pointing at nothing is worse
than no wildcard — every name under it resolves and then hangs, where an
unresolvable name fails at once and says which name it was.
Internal names are written to the machine's hosts file, which serves the
machine and not what the machine runs: a container gets its own hosts file
holding only its own hostname. So every name the mesh wrote was invisible to
the majority of things that need one — and on the machine it always worked,
which is exactly what made it easy to miss.
It was hit for real in the lab, and worked around by resolving the address on
the machine and passing it in. That workaround is now removed, and its absence
is the assertion.
A file rather than a resolver, which is the decision the mesh already made
about names and this extends rather than overturns: it works on every runtime,
needs no package and has no failure mode of its own. The stated trigger for a
resolver — names that are not one-per-node, service names, wildcards — is
still not met.
Given by the mesh, not chosen by a module: a module that listed the machines
would go stale the day one joins, and one that did not would be a module whose
containers cannot reach anything by name. A container that named its own keeps
them and gets the mesh's beside them.
Only containers, and not the ones on the machine's own network: a runtime
refuses to write a hosts file for those, and a file or a service given the
field is a declaration the host refuses outright — so getting it wrong breaks
the whole machine for something that was never about names.
The machine that most needed a firewall was the one that could not have one. A
hub is dialled by every node at other sites and needs its port open; a machine
that is not a hub dials out and needs nothing open. They are the same module,
and `listens` in a manifest is one answer for every machine that runs it — so
the machine a static answer gets wrong is the one facing the public internet.
A generator can now say what it opens, in a second interface rather than a
method on every generator: most have nothing to say here, and requiring an
empty method of each would be a cost paid everywhere for one caller.
The port is the one in the endpoint, which is where the interface takes its
ListenPort from. One source, so a rule set cannot open a port the interface is
not on. Open to everywhere and deliberately: a node at another site is not on
the private network until this port lets it on, so restricting it to the mesh
would be a rule that can never be satisfied by the thing it exists for.
And a generator that cannot say is refused rather than read as silence. Closing
a port on the evidence of a failure to look is how a machine is severed by a
fault somewhere else — and the machine it would sever is the hub, whose only
route to being fixed is the network it just closed.
Adding "not running what the mesh would send it" to `status` and not to the
board would have left two answers to one question with a person in front of
each — which is the single thing this page's design forbids, introduced by the
change that was supposed to make the question answerable.
The published JSON carries it as well, so the page, the command and anything
built against either say the same thing from the same read. Additive, because
that shape is hard to change once anything is built against it.
Never told stays separate from out of date on the page as it is everywhere
else: same remedy, and nobody has ever asked that machine to be anything.
It meant "failed or refused". So a machine that applied cleanly and whose
declaration has since changed was not behind — and novox/hq ADR 0010's
question, did my change go out?, was answerable exactly for the machines that
broke. For every machine that worked, the answer was silence whether the change
had gone out or not, which is the thing replacing a pipeline was supposed not
to cost.
The mesh now records a digest of what it last sent each machine. A digest
rather than the declaration: it can compute what a machine should be at any
moment, and keeping a copy would be a second account of it able to disagree
with the first. What cannot be recomputed is what was actually sent.
Recorded after the send, not before — a digest kept for something that failed
to send would make the machine look current for a declaration it never
received.
Never told stays separate from out of date. The remedy is the same push and the
situations are not alike: nobody has ever asked that machine to be anything.
And a machine the mesh could not work out is not reported as waiting, because
saying so would invent a comparison — that is `plan`'s answer to give.
`status` says it and `push --behind` sends it, or the flag would know something
the person reading the status does not.
novox/hq ADR 0009: a capability's presence gates an assignment and its detail
carries a value — seat: card1-DP-1, an architecture, an amount of memory. So
'can this run here' and 'what should it be configured as' are one fact read two
ways, and the mesh was keeping the first read and discarding the second.
The reason an absent capability is absent went the same way, which is the case
a person most needs: 'this machine has no container runtime' is the answer and
'docker is not installed' is why, and only the machine knows why.
`node show` says it back. Never reported and reported nothing stay different
things there — one machine has not run the host, the other ran it and can do
nothing, and those send a person to different places.
novox/hq 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/11-a-board.md, built. The board being replaced is
one service reading every context's database directly — ADR 0008 violated by
the one component with a reason to violate it. The cost is not hypothetical: a
boundary nothing may cross can move, and one thing crossing it is enough to
freeze it. A board that reads the provisioning tables breaks when provisioning
changes them, and the change then gets weighed against the board.
So the three questions are read once, by one function, for all three ways of
saying them — a person's status, its JSON, and this page. Three
implementations of "which machine is not doing what it was told" would be three
chances to disagree.
Refused and failed stay distinct all the way to the page: refused means the
machine is exactly as it was and what is wrong is in what was sent; failed
means it is in a state nobody declared. Different places to fix, so one word
for both would send half the readers to the wrong one.
It stores nothing, changes nothing, and every action it might offer already
exists as a command. A board that cannot reach the mesh says so rather than
rendering an empty page — an empty page says "nothing is wrong" in the one
situation where nobody can know that.
One test earns its place twice: a machine's own words are the whole reason the
page is useful and the one thing on it nobody in this repository wrote, so they
are shown and are not markup.
A status that names what is wrong and not what to do about it makes somebody go
and find the command — and the command is the whole point of having noticed.
The hint existed on one of the two paths that print this.
The pass that answers *what does this node offer* takes a failed resolution to
mean it learned nothing about that node. So refusing an unanswerable
requirement there made the machine disappear — and every other machine was then
told, wrongly, that the two of them shared no private network.
A wrong answer about a machine nobody asked about, caused by a fault on a
third. The lab found it: one module needing a licence that had not been added
yet made two unrelated machines look disconnected.
The second pass still refuses it, where the question is actually being asked.
Its own store, its own test database, the same shape every other context has.
Five properties: a key with nobody to seal it to is refused rather than kept
readably; a key is sealed once per holder and the blobs differ because they are
sealed to different machines; a holder recorded afterwards has none and the
existing ones keep theirs; releasing a consumer takes its key; and a licence
nobody recorded is refused by name.
The last was the only one whose message mattered and whose message was not
checked — the database's own foreign-key error is true and mentions a
constraint, which sends somebody to read a schema instead of typing the name
they meant.
Partial sealing now says how far it got. The person holding the key is the only
one who can finish, and running it again knowing what it will do is different
from running it hoping.
novox/hq ADR 0010 replaced a pipeline with a comparison, and named the risk:
losing the question "did my change go out?". The mesh could already answer
which modules are behind their source — and then a person read that list and
retyped each repository, which is a person being the loop, and the loop is the
thing the pipeline was doing before it was taken away.
The mirror of `push --behind`, with the same argument and the same refusal to
combine the two forms: naming a repository and asking which need building are
different requests.
One failing does not stop the others, for the same reason one broken module no
longer blocks a machine's whole declaration: a mesh where one bad repository
holds back nine good ones is a mesh where nobody dares add the tenth.
Each is built from its own recorded ref rather than the commit the mesh
happened to notice — pinning to that would quietly turn a tracked branch into
a pin.
novox/hq ADR 0024, gaps 1 and 2. The user's stated requirement, and the first
thing here that no machine can answer: a hosted model is on nobody's node and
is reached over the public internet, so the rule that refuses two ends sharing
no private network must not apply to it.
A licence is a named thing and the name is the operator's — *the personal
account*, *the organisation's* — because the whole point is saying which one a
given consumer uses, and an anonymous credential hanging off a provider cannot
be said. Many to many, so deliberately not a claim: two machines sharing an
account is ordinary rather than a collision.
Gap 2 is the missing verb, *accept*: take a value somebody supplied, seal it to
each holder, discard the plaintext. With the consequence stated rather than
hidden — a holder recorded after the key was supplied has no key and the mesh
cannot make one, so it is refused by name with the remedy, not silently handed
an empty file.
Refusal is felt, as the record warns: a mesh holding three ways to reach a
model refuses every consumer that has not chosen. So the refusal names the
candidates and the exact command. Being right is not the same as being usable.
Gaps 3 and 4 — a consumer that is not a machine, and switching as a reaction
rather than a declaration — remain gaps. Half-building them would put a
conditional in the declaration language, which is what ADR 0024 says plainly to
avoid.
Its own context, with its own store and its own credential: a licence is a
different aggregate from anything inventory owns, and it refers to nodes by
name because that is what crossing a context boundary may carry.
novox/hq 08-connectivity §3, built. The mirror of a database grant: there the
consumer supplies a name and receives credentials; here it supplies a target
and receives a name. Nothing new in the vocabulary — a route is a provision
like any other.
One field was missing and it is the one that matters for anything reaching
back: a contribution now carries where the mesh says that machine is. A reverse
proxy is told to send traffic to a consumer and has to open a connection, so
without it every provider implementing a provision would have to know how the
mesh names machines — a convention leaking into every module.
The proxy itself is an example, not part of the control plane: the contract is
the file, not this program. It replaces its table whole rather than merging,
because the file is the whole truth about who has a route and merging would
keep serving a name whose module was unassigned — the stale-route fault
08-connectivity lists as open, reintroduced one level down. A name it does not
serve is refused by saying which it does: a route withdrawn and a name that
never existed are different things.
The invariant novox/hq ADR 0001 records as unowned, and it was measurably
false in HAL: a provision documented as never rotating minted a new password on
every adoption and updated only the provider's row. Consumers on three nodes
held dead credentials for two days while the mesh reported success. Nothing
enumerated who held the old one.
Three things make that impossible here. The holders are a set the mesh can name
— each pair has its own credential, so rotating one consumer touches one role
and the affected list is a query rather than an assumption. Both ends are
pushed by this command rather than a later one, because leaving the sending to
whoever remembered is the fault exactly. And it is all-or-nothing: if any
affected machine cannot be resolved, nothing is sent and the old credential
keeps working, which is a mesh that has not rotated rather than one that has
half-rotated.
The window is stated rather than hidden: a role's password changes on the
provider and the file changes on the consumer, and they cannot be simultaneous.
The provisioner now takes its superuser password from the file the mesh wrote,
which is how the mesh delivers one. Passing it through the environment needed a
person in the middle of the one path that exists so there is not one — and put
a superuser password where `docker inspect` prints it.
The builder hashed the certificate and compared a bare digest against a
fingerprint written as `sha256:` followed by 64 hex characters. It could never
match — and it failed as "this is not the broker this builder was told about",
which is the one thing this check exists to report truthfully. A check that
cries wolf on every correct broker is worse than no check, because the first
thing anybody does is remove it.
The error now prints what was expected beside what arrived, the way the host's
has always done: without both, the message describes a mismatch nobody can
confirm.
And the pin check has its own test, driven against a real TLS handshake — it
accepts the certificate whose fingerprint the mesh wrote and refuses another.
A pin only ever exercised through a live broker is a pin nothing tests.
A binding was skipped when the provider turned out to be on the same node,
reasoning that a file saying "it is on this node" is a fact nobody needs. That
is right about the location and wrong about everything beside it: a binding
also carries what the provider said a consumer must know, which is the port,
and a consumer cannot invent that.
A build machine sharing a node with the registry it pushes to sat in a loop
saying it could not read its own binding. Nothing was wrong with the machine,
the module, the credential or the provision — the file was never written, and
the absence looked exactly like a mistake in the module.
The original intent is kept where it was right: a provision whose provider said
nothing a consumer must know is still not written. A shell is answered here and
there is nothing to say about it. A registry is answered here and the port is
still unguessable.
The address is this machine's name on the private network, or loopback when it
has none — a machine off the network still reaches itself, and a name nothing
resolves is worse than an address that always works.
The credential was a URL and nothing else, so the builder verified the broker
the ordinary way — against public roots. A mesh's broker presents a certificate
of the mesh's own, which is in no trust store anywhere, so the connection could
only ever succeed against a broker somebody else vouches for. It failed at TLS
with an error about an unknown authority rather than about a missing pin, and
the container sat there running: up, credential on disk, connected to nothing.
So the sealed credential now carries the URL and the broker's fingerprint —
the same two facts a node's token carries, for the same reason, delivered out
of band relative to the thing being trusted. The builder pins it: the standard
chain check is replaced rather than removed, and what replaces it is stricter,
accepting one certificate instead of every certificate a public authority
would sign.
A file holding only a URL still works, for a builder somebody runs by hand
against a broker with an ordinary certificate.
The host does not sort — order is stated (novox/hq ADR 0005) — so the order the
mesh writes down is the order a machine applies. Certificates, credentials,
bound files and the rule set were appended after a module's own resources, so a
service or container that depends on one was applied before it existed.
It failed and the next reconcile fixed it, which is why nothing caught it. A
fault that repairs itself on the second attempt is worse than one that does
not: what gets remembered is that it works.
Nothing the mesh computes depends on a module's resources, so putting all of it
first is unconditionally right. Merged after the computed-resources branch,
which replaces a module's resources wholesale and would otherwise discard them.
nftables matches ip and ip6 separately and one set holding both is a syntax
error, so the file would not load: the service reports a configuration fault
and the machine filters nothing. Also a make target for the builder image,
which the lab now stocks.
Two kinds live in module_secret and they behaved identically, which is right
for one of them. A made secret is the mesh's: when a node regenerates its
sealing key the mesh makes another and nothing is lost, because nothing else
ever knew the old one.
An accepted secret is not. A broker account's password exists because the
broker was told about it. Regenerating one puts 32 random bytes where a working
credential was — and the machine applies it, reports success, and the program
reading it fails to authenticate somewhere else entirely, with the mesh
insisting the secret was delivered, which it was.
The row now records where the value came from, and a rejoined machine asking
for an accepted one is refused with the remedy named: issue it again. No amount
of pushing produces a password the broker has never heard of.
Found while making the builder a module, which is the first thing to hold one.
A rule nobody derives is a rule somebody keeps in step by hand, and five HAL
manifests carry a `scope:` key that reads as a restriction and restricts
nothing. Both halves are closed here.
Manifests are parsed strictly. An unknown key is refused, which is the
discipline the host's declaration parser has always had; `scope:` survived
because nothing rejected it.
A module says what it listens on and who may reach it, and saying from where is
required — a rule with no source is open, and must say so rather than appear to
restrict something. The mesh gathers every assigned module's ports, widens
where two overlap, names every module that wanted each one, and renders one
nftables file per node. What no module declared is closed.
Three things it deliberately does not do: it writes no forward policy, because
what a machine routes is the container runtime's business and dropping there
stops every container on the node; it never flushes the whole ruleset, only
its own table; and it carries no command to load itself, because the link may
not carry an action. A service declares `restart-on` the file instead, which is
the shape that rule leaves.
Also fixes a fault the lab found: certificateFor asked where every node is
without the catalogue, so nothing resolved, every machine looked like it was on
no private network, and every certificate the mesh was asked for was refused
with a reason that was not true. Asking that question without the catalogue is
now refused rather than answered wrongly.
08-connectivity keeps two authorities apart on purpose: a public one for
names the outside world reaches, and the mesh's own for names only the
mesh knows. Nothing implemented the second, so anything between machines
was plaintext or trust-on-first-use — which the design refuses everywhere
else.
A node now generates a fourth key at enrolment and reports the public
half. A fourth, because a key used for two purposes is one rotation away
from breaking the other: the identity key signs messages to the mesh and
would do for TLS, and reusing it would mean rotating a node's identity
every time its certificate is replaced.
**Nothing secret travels and nothing is sealed.** A certificate authority
says "this name belongs to the holder of this key", so the mesh signs a
public half it cannot use, and the certificate it issues is public. A
module asks for one and is given the certificate and, if it wants,
the mesh's own — the private key is a path to a file the machine already
has, the same arrangement the private network's key uses.
Asserted by verifying rather than inspecting, because a certificate that
parses and does not chain fails at the moment something connects:
- what the mesh issues verifies against the mesh, for the name asked for
- the name is in the subject alternative names, since a certificate
carrying it only in the common name is refused by every modern client
- it certifies the key the node generated and no other
- another mesh's certificate does not verify, which is the whole point of
two authorities being separate
- the authority cannot sign another authority — one that could is one
that can be delegated without anybody deciding to
- two control planes starting together agree on one authority, or a mesh
has certificates half its machines refuse
Certificates last ten years, which is a choice: a short life needs
something to renew it, and a renewal that fails silently is a mesh that
stops trusting itself on a date nobody wrote down. What makes one
replaceable is that the mesh reissues on demand, not that it expires.
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
`status` says which machines are not doing what they were told, and
nothing acted on it: a machine that refused or failed stayed wrong until
somebody ran push again naming it.
`push --behind` sends only to machines whose last report was not a clean
apply. A command rather than a timer, deliberately: a scheduler is then a
scheduler over this, where building the scheduler first would have meant
two paths to one act with nothing to compare them against.
Naming a machine and asking which machines need one are different
requests, so `push <node> --behind` is refused rather than guessed. With
nothing behind it says so, because "nothing needed one" and "this did not
run" must never look the same. A machine failing the same way for six
hours is pushed to anyway and said about — refusing would leave no way to
retry after fixing the cause, and this is a command somebody ran.
Proven in the lab: a machine is broken with a package that does not
exist, `push --behind` names it and not the machine that is fine, the
module is corrected, and the machine recovers without anybody naming it.
And the builder can be told where to publish rather than configured. A
builder that is a module requires an artifact store, and the mesh writes
it the same binding any consumer of any provision gets. A binding with no
address is refused rather than falling back to anything — that would
publish to a store on the wrong machine and be found out much later. The
variable remains for a builder run by a person, which is how it is still
run while being developed.
Found by testing removal, which is the half nobody tests.
A grant was emitted for every secret the mesh held, whether or not the
machine still asked for it. So a consumer that was unassigned kept
appearing in its provider's manifest — and the provisioner's rule about
removing what nobody asks for can only fire if the mesh stops asking. The
login would have stayed live for ever, and nothing would have said so.
Skipped where the declaration is built rather than where grants are
gathered, so the rule holds whoever gathers them. No credential file is
written for a withdrawn consumer either, or the provisioner would find a
file its manifest does not mention and have to guess what that means.
The secret itself is deliberately kept. It is sealed and unusable to the
mesh, and a machine that comes back gets what it had — what withdraws the
login is the manifest, which is the thing that reconciles.
A module usually runs software somebody else built: a database module
ships configuration and a provisioner and does not build a database. It
could name the upstream reference directly, and then every machine needs
a route to a public registry and the reference is a tag somebody else can
move — which is what pinning exists to prevent.
So an artifact may be `upstream`: pulled by the reference the module
names, pushed into the mesh's own registry, and pinned by the digest that
registry assigns. This is what the bootstrap already does by hand; it is
now something a module can say.
Refused: an upstream reference with no tag or digest, because what gets
mirrored would be whatever `latest` means today and a module pinned to
that is not pinned. And the rule that a build reads only its own
repository does not apply to it — applying it anyway refused every
reference with a registry host in it, which the test caught.
Written by trying to write a real postgres module and finding it could
not be said. It can now: two directories, two containers pinned by
digest, a superuser password sealed to the machine, and the grants
manifest — six resources from one assignment, all accepted by the host's
own parser.
That exercise also found my manifest wrong rather than the host: a
container declared `restart-on`, which is a service field, and the host
refused it by name. It is right to. A container whose own definition
changes is recreated, and a file it mounts is read by the process inside,
which is that image's business.
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.
A node reports back after applying a declaration: it worked, some of it
failed, or the whole thing was refused. A refusal or a failure moved
last_seen and the reason went to a log line — so "which machine is not
doing what it was told" had no answer the next morning, which is the
question a mesh exists to answer.
Refused and failed are kept as different things, because they are
different situations with different remedies: refused means the machine
is exactly as it was and what is wrong is in what was sent; failed means
it is in a state nobody declared and what is wrong is on the machine. One
word for both would make the record say less than the node did.
One row per node, replaced. The question is the machine's current state —
"this failed an hour ago and then succeeded" is not a machine anybody
needs to look at, and a table of every report would bury the ones that
matter under the ones that do not.
`status` now answers three questions in the order somebody asks them: is
anything broken, is anything not answering, is anything out of date. The
first has consequences now, the third is a plan for later, and a status
leading with the third would bury the first. A machine that has never
spoken is reported as quiet rather than as broken — new, switched off and
unreachable are not the same as tried and could not.
The mapping from a report to an outcome had no test at all, which the
injection caught: it is the code deciding which of those situations a
machine is in. It has four now, including that a partial report never
becomes the account of what the machine holds — the fault that destroyed
a substrate once.
The builder was documented as holding its own broker credential and
nothing else, and nothing issued one — so in practice it used whatever it
was handed, which was the broker's administrative account. A program
documented as holding its own credential and given somebody else's is
worse than one with no story at all.
`builder issue <name>` creates an account that may read the build queue
and write to the mesh exchange. Not a node account: a build machine is
not a node, and a node's queue carries its declarations.
Two faults found by running it, both about the answer path:
- the reply queue was left for the broker to name, and the account was
scoped to `amq.gen-*` — one broker's convention. The builder built,
could not answer, and the connection closed. Reply queues are named
here now, deterministically.
- the answer then went via the DEFAULT exchange, where permission is
granted per exchange rather than per queue. A builder allowed to use it
could publish into any node's queue, which is the privilege a build
machine most obviously should not have. Answers go through the mesh
exchange, which it already may use, and an asker binds its reply queue
to the same key and filters by correlation.
Verified against a real broker: a builder cannot consume a node's queue
and cannot publish to the default exchange. That check nearly reported
the opposite — an unconfirmed publish is asynchronous, so the refusal
arrives as a channel close afterwards and a naive test sees success. With
publisher confirms it is immediate. A negative security assertion made
against an asynchronous call is not an assertion.
Redelivery was observed working while fixing this: builders that died
before answering left their work on the queue, and the next builder did
all of it.
Also: the queue and exchange names exist in both `broker` and `link`,
because `link` imports `broker`. A test in an external package keeps them
agreeing — a builder scoped to a queue nothing publishes to takes no work
and says nothing about why.
A build result was answered to whoever asked and kept nowhere. So "when
did this last build", "why did it fail" and "which machine built what is
running" had no answer, and a build nobody was waiting for was reported
into the void — which is the same as not reporting it.
Failures are recorded too, and that is the point rather than a detail: a
failed build that leaves no trace is indistinguishable from one nobody
asked for, and the difference is the whole of whether somebody should be
looking at something. A build that never learned what it was building
keeps the repository, because that is what a person goes and looks at.
Recording is idempotent on the correlation id, because a result can
arrive twice — as the answer to whoever asked, and on the exchange when
nobody was. Two rows would show one build as two, and which is real is
not answerable afterwards.
The serving control plane now binds `built` as well, so results from
builds it did not ask for are kept. It refuses them loudly when it has
nowhere to put them rather than dropping them, so the broker's own
counters show something arriving that nothing handles.
`builds [<module>]` reads it: what happened lately across the mesh, or
what has happened to one module — the first asked after something goes
wrong, the second when deciding whether to trust something.
What was published is kept with the build, so a digest traces back to
what made it without holding the manifest twice in a place that can
disagree with the first.
The last of the four gaps ADR 0024 names. Everything the mesh handles
today it generated itself, sealed to both ends, and discarded. An API key
for a hosted service comes from a person, and carrying it needs a verb
the mesh did not have.
Accept seals it on the way in and keeps no plaintext — the same storage
and the same property as a generated one, only a different origin. That
is the whole difference from the arrangement being replaced, where an
operator-supplied key sits in a column the control plane can read, which
makes a copy of the database a copy of every account the mesh touches.
The consequence is deliberate: the mesh cannot show it back. Somebody who
loses the key gets a new one from wherever it came from. There is no
reveal and there cannot be one, because a mesh that can reveal a secret
is a mesh that holds it — asserted as a test, because it is a property
somebody will eventually ask to break.
An empty value is refused. A credential that exists, authenticates
nowhere and looks exactly like a working one is the failure this whole
mechanism is arranged to prevent.
A build is work, not state. Everything else the control plane sends a
node is a declaration — this is what you should be — reconciled forever.
A build happens once and is finished. Putting it in a declaration would
mean rebuilding on every reconcile, or a declaration carrying "and I
already did this", which is state about an event rather than about a
machine.
So it travels on its own queue and the answer comes back correlated. One
queue, so several build machines share the work and each request is done
exactly once — which a per-machine routing key would not give.
mesh-builder is the program a build machine runs. Not the control plane,
which must not run commands on a machine; not the host, which would then
need a container runtime and git everywhere to do something almost no
machine will ever do. It holds its own broker credential and nothing
else.
Three properties that are decisions:
- a request is acknowledged only once the answer is away, so a builder
that dies mid-build leaves the work for another machine rather than
losing it with nobody ever hearing why
- one build at a time. Five at once against one runtime finishes all five
slower than it would have finished the first, and the queue is what
shares work between machines
- a failure is a RESULT. A build that fails silently is
indistinguishable from a builder that is not running, and those want
different responses
And `module list` is a catalogue: what exists, at which version, built
from which commit or handed over by hand or shipped with the control
plane, whether it is behind its source, and which machines run it. All of
that was recorded from the first build and none of it was shown, so "is
this current?" could only be answered by reading the database.
Proven against a real broker, registry and store: the mesh asked, a
builder consumed, built, published, answered; the manifest was recorded
with its commit; the source moved and the catalogue said "behind";
rebuilding caught it up with a new digest because the content changed.
One store, and it is the registry the bootstrap already pulls from. An
OCI registry is a content-addressed blob store that also understands
images: PUT a blob and it is retrievable at /v2/<name>/blobs/sha256:… for
ever, by digest. An archive is a content-addressed blob.
A second store beside it was considered and is the right answer for
objects that are mutable, need per-reader access, or are not build output
— somebody's uploads, a backup, a thing with a lifecycle. None of that
describes a digest-pinned archive, and running a second service to hold
one kind of immutable blob is two things to run, two to back up, and two
ways for an artifact to be missing. Overturnable by reading: the manifest
carries a URL and a digest, and neither says what served it.
`build <repository>` clones, reads module.json, builds what it declares,
publishes, and records the manifest with the commit it came from. It is a
command rather than something the control plane does on its own, because
building runs things on a machine and what the control plane may send a
machine is bounded by the declaration language. This is the shape the
builder module takes when it is given work over the broker.
Proven end to end on a real repository and a real registry: a shell
module with a package, a user and a dotfile archive built, published,
fetched back at the digest it declared, rebuilt to the same digest, and
its manifest accepted by the host's own parser — including `user` and
`archive`, which did not exist this morning.
A tag is never accepted as a pin, and a blob already stored is not sent
again — it is named by its content, so re-uploading asks the registry to
store what it already has under the name it already has.
It runs on a node, not in the control plane. Building needs a container
runtime and a working tree, and the control plane deliberately cannot run
commands on a machine — what it may send is bounded by the declaration
language, and "run this build" is not in it. So the builder is something
a node runs as a module, given work over the broker like anything else.
The alternative, the control plane holding a docker socket, would make it
the one component that can do anything anywhere, which is the property
the whole design is arranged to avoid.
A module repository has one file at its root, module.json, saying what it
is and what it builds. A convention somebody can look for beats a setting
somebody has to find.
Properties that are decisions rather than details:
- a fresh clone every time. A build reusing a working tree can succeed
because of something a previous build left behind, and that is a build
nobody can reproduce.
- archives are packed deterministically — sorted, and carrying no
timestamps, uid, gid or original names. Two builds of one commit must
produce one digest, or nothing downstream can tell "this changed" from
"this was built again", and every rebuild looks like a change to every
machine holding it.
- nothing is published until everything is built. Half a module in the
store under a digest the mesh never records is reachable,
unreferenced, and indistinguishable from something in use.
The reproducibility test was passing for the wrong reason: both builds
landed in the same second, so a packer carrying timestamps would still
have agreed. It now stamps the two trees a year apart, and a timestamp in
the header breaks it.
One line is honest about not being independently tested: the sort before
packing is belt and braces over filepath.Walk's documented lexical order,
and no injection can distinguish it.
document
The manifest in a repository names artifacts; the manifest the mesh holds
names digests. Keeping them the same file would mean a repository
carrying a digest — wrong the moment anybody edits anything, and pinning
a value nobody could have checked.
So a resource says `"artifact": "server"`, and resolving a build rewrites
it to the image reference or the archive's source and digest, removing
the build-time word entirely. The host has never heard of an artifact and
its strict decoder would refuse one, at the worst moment.
A module that builds nothing is ordinary and needs no build section —
most of what a person installs is configuration, and a field that exists
to be left blank is a field nobody fills in correctly.
Refusals worth having:
- an artifact declared and not produced blames THE BUILD, not the
resource. Both are failures and the remedies are in different places;
telling somebody to fix the wrong one costs an afternoon. Found by
injection: the first version's message could not be told apart from
the resource-level one, so the check was not actually tested.
- a build reads its own repository and nothing else. An input path
leaving it makes what gets built depend on whatever happens to be on
the machine building it.
- two artifacts with one name, because a resource naming it could mean
either.
resolve.go had grown to 796 lines doing four jobs: working out what a
machine should run, applying settings, collecting contributions, and
placing credentials. They answer different questions — the first is
"what", the rest are "what does that look like as resources" — and one
file doing both is how a thing starts becoming the kernel everything
imports.
Prompted by looking at why HAL's shared library became unmaintainable.
Measured while here, and the shape is the inverse of that one: the large
packages import nothing internal, and only inventory and link compose. A
change to module resolution cannot reach connectivity, because
connectivity does not import it.
Found by raising a mesh end to end. The broker account a joining node
authenticates as is named after the node, and exists before that machine
has been told anything — so the node has to know its name before the mesh
can tell it. Without it, enrolment fails at the broker with an empty
username, which says nothing about why.
Not a secret, and the issuer already knows it. The wire-format test now
covers it, so a rename on either side fails in both repositories rather
than at enrolment on a real machine.
The enrolment request is a struct in each repository. A node now reports
a third key — the one its secrets are sealed to — and that wiring had
unit tests on each side and had never been run across the join. A field
renamed on one side fails silently: enrolment succeeds, the key is
absent, and the node looks joined until the first thing sealed to it
cannot be opened, by which point nobody is looking at enrolment.
So the host's suite writes a real request and this one reads it, the same
way the declaration check already runs in the other direction. Both skip
with a reason when the neighbour is not checked out.
It does more than compare shapes: it seals something to the key that
arrived and opens it with the private half the host kept. Confirmed to
fail three ways — a renamed field, a value that is not a key, and a key
that is present, correctly named and simply somebody else's. Only the
last needs the sealing step, and it is the one a shape check would pass.
Also `inventory.ForTest`, because the check lives beside the link and a
second copy of the throwaway-database helper would be a second thing to
keep true.
Contributions were node-local, so a mesh-scoped provider — the one case
that most needs them — never heard from its consumers. A database was
given a password and no idea what to create it for.
Cross-node consumers now reach the provider's `receives` file, merged in
with the ones on its own machine: from the provider's side they are the
same thing, and a provider that had to read two lists would read one of
them. Each names the file its credential is in rather than carrying it,
because the mesh discarded the value and could not put it there. The
readable half therefore stays readable.
And examples/postgres-provisioner, which is the last step: it reads what
the host wrote and makes PostgreSQL accept it. Explicitly not part of the
control plane — the control plane decides and never touches a machine.
This runs on the machine and touches it, and a real one ships with the
module that ships PostgreSQL. It lives here because this is where the
contract is defined, written as something that runs so it can be read.
It reconciles rather than applying a change, because it is never told
what changed. Three things that follow, and each is a fault somebody has
shipped:
- the password is set every time, not only on creation, or a rotation
reports success and changes nothing
- what it made and nobody asks for any more is revoked, or a departed
consumer keeps a working login for ever
- what it did not make is left alone, or it cannot be run on a database
that predates it
Proven in the lab against a real PostgreSQL, each assertion confirmed to
fail with the behaviour removed. The suite is in mesh-lab, which also
records the two ways the test itself was wrong first.
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.
Knowing that a machine needs the anchor's database is useless to the
program that needs it unless the program is told. It knew; nothing was
written anywhere it could read.
Two fields, mirroring contributes/receives in the other direction:
serves: {database: {port: 5432, driver: postgres}} on the provider
binds: {database: /etc/app/database.json} on the consumer
The provider says what a consumer needs to know; the mesh adds the half
only it has — which machine, and what that machine is called on the
private network. The file says, in itself, that it carries no credential
and why. A missing field looks like a bug; a stated absence looks like a
boundary.
Binding something answered on this machine writes nothing. A file saying
"it is on this node" is a fact nobody needs and one more thing to keep
true.
And two machines that share no private network are refused rather than
wired together. An app here and a database there with no path between
them is a mesh that reports itself configured and does not work — the
failure surfaces as a connection timing out, which is the slowest place
to find it. This is checkable now only because the network became
something a machine is given rather than something it has by having an
address.
One fault, found by running it: working out who is on the private network
resolved the mesh, and resolving the mesh asks who is on the private
network. It hung for two minutes. The comment above the function said not
to do that and the function did it anyway; it now resolves each node
locally, which is the right answer to the question regardless — whether a
machine is on the network depends on what it was assigned, not on what it
takes from others.
Two different things were both written `requires`. A shell, a display
server and a private network have to be on the machine that needs them.
A database does not — it runs somewhere and is reached over the network.
Both were answered the same way, so requiring a database installed
PostgreSQL on every machine that ran a web application.
What a module provides now carries a scope, the same idea claims already
use, written short in the ordinary case:
"provides": ["shell"]
"provides": [{"name": "database", "scope": "mesh"}]
A mesh-scoped requirement is answered by finding the node already running
it — never by installing it here. Choosing a machine to put a database on
is a decision with consequences, and nothing resolving a web application
should make it silently. With nothing anywhere it refuses and says which
module to assign; with two it refuses and says how to choose.
Choosing is `pin <node> <provision> <from>`, kept per node because that
is the granularity the choice has. A pin at a machine that does not
provide it refuses rather than falling back — a fallback would quietly
move somebody's data. One provider does not overrule a pin either.
Resolving a node now needs to know what the others offer, and working
that out needs them resolved, so it is two passes: the first answers only
what each node offers, the second answers everything. Nothing is ever
declared from the first.
A node's plan says what it takes from elsewhere. It is the only part of a
set that stops working when a different machine goes away, and nothing
else in that output would have said so. It is also where a credential
will hang once there is a mechanism for handing one back.
One test found passing for the wrong reason: it read pins through a join
on the provider, which hides a dangling row whether or not it was cleaned
up. It counts rows now, and bites when the cascade is removed.
`requires` said a thing must be there. It never said what to do with it,
so a web application requiring a reverse proxy had nowhere to put "this
name, this port". The two modules that needed it most went round the
outside and opened a connection to the control plane's database, which is
why every node holds a credential to it permanently.
Two fields close it:
contributes: {reverse-proxy: {host: board, port: 8080}}
receives: {reverse-proxy: /etc/traefik/dynamic/mesh.json}
The control plane collects every contribution on a node and writes them
to the path the provider named, ordered by module so the file does not
churn. Contributing to something is requiring it — asking to be published
means a publisher must exist, and a module that had to say both would
eventually say one.
The control plane does not know what a reverse proxy is and does not
write one's configuration. It delivers facts; the module turns them into
whatever it runs. That is why swapping the proxy touches nothing that
publishes through it, and why the host needs no new vocabulary — a
received file is a file.
Settings reach a contribution the same way they reach a file, because a
hostname is exactly what differs between one mesh and the next.
Two things found by running it:
- the file had a `//` header, so it said "do not edit" to a person and
failed to parse for the program meant to read it. The note is inside
the document now.
- a provider with no consumers gets an empty file rather than none. It
cannot otherwise tell "nothing asked for me" from "the mesh never
wrote it", and those want different responses.
Also `plan <node> --json`, which is how the declaration gets handed to
the host's own parser.
Connectivity was code beside the module system doing the module system's
job: every machine with an address was on the private network and there
was no way to keep one off.
A manifest can now say its resources are computed by the control plane,
which is what a peer list needs — it is derived from every machine at
once, so nothing could be written in advance. The network is a module
from there on: assigned, resolved, settled, and absent from a machine
nobody gave it to.
Three modules rather than one, because WireGuard is one VPN of several:
mesh-wireguard provides private-network, mesh-addressing
claims the-private-network, one per node
mesh-names provides name-resolution, requires mesh-addressing
networking requires both, and ships no files of its own
The last is the point. Most people want the network up and do not want
to choose a VPN, so `assign networking` takes the only answer to each
requirement silently. The day the catalogue holds a second one there are
two answers, the resolver refuses and names them, and choosing is
assigning the one you want. No flavor field, nothing to configure.
Names left the WireGuard declaration for their own module. They would be
identical over a different private network, and bundling them made one
module out of two things.
Three faults the walk found:
- choosing tailscale still installed WireGuard, dragged back in by the
names needing the mesh's own addresses. Caught now by a claim: running
two VPNs is fine, being *the* mesh network is singular.
- a requirement wanted by two modules was reported twice, identically.
- "this mesh has no hub" was reported when the real cause was that a
node could not be resolved at all. It now names the node and the why.
And a test that asserts the manifests actually shipped, after the claim
went missing from the real one while every test stayed green.
Managed files are generated and never edited, so somebody's intention about one
has to live where the generator can see it. It does now: the module ships
defaults, settings go over the top by key, and the file is produced from both.
Upstream can rewrite its half freely and the keys somebody chose survive.
Two layers, both from the start. The mesh's settings for a module, then one
machine's over those. A node that differs is expressed by differing, rather
than by restating everything the rest already say -- which would pin all of it
against future changes for no reason.
An override beats a default and there is nothing to resolve. A setting is a
statement about that key made deliberately; the default was only ever what to
do in the absence of one. So when upstream changes a key somebody has set,
there is no conflict, no merge markers, and nothing to ask.
Nested blocks merge and lists are replaced whole. Setting one field of a block
must not delete its siblings, or every setting would restate the whole block
and pin all of it. A list that merged element-wise could neither be shortened
nor reordered, and there is no correct guess about which element is "the same
one".
A module can keep specific keys for itself -- a socket path its own code
depends on -- and setting one is REFUSED rather than ignored. A setting quietly
dropped is somebody believing they changed something.
Settings that reach nothing are named at the moment they would be used, not
discovered later by the machine not behaving differently.
`plan --files` prints what a machine would be given before it is sent, because
"1 resource" does not tell you whether the merge landed.
One test kept with a note that it does not defend this code: output stability
comes from Go's encoder sorting map keys, so it passes with the merging
removed. Worth having as the thing that would catch a change of encoder, but it
is not evidence about anything written here, and it was checked.
Delivery is a comparison, not a pipeline: the control plane holds what source
exists and what has been built from it, and the difference is the work. Both
halves are written down now, so "is this current" is a question about two
columns rather than something you find out by building.
`status` answers "did my change go out?", which ADR 0010 names as the real risk
of replacing a pipeline with a comparison -- it is answerable today by opening
a pipeline, and something had to replace that.
zsh holds 4f2a9c1e, source has 9e3b7d2a
running on laptop
The machines are the point. A module being out of date is a fact about the
catalogue; which machines are running last week's version is the thing with
consequences.
Three things this had to get right.
A module with no source is never behind -- it was handed over directly, which
is how a one-off arrives, and saying "out of date" about it would be inventing
a comparison against nothing.
A source nobody has checked is not behind either. Reporting it as behind would
put every module on the list the moment provenance was recorded, which makes
the list say nothing. Fault injection found this: my first test passed with the
guard removed, because both halves were empty strings and compared equal. The
case that actually needed it -- a known commit and an unknown head -- was
untested.
And handing over a manifest by hand does not erase where the module normally
comes from. Fixing something in a hurry is legitimate; silently forgetting its
origin is not, because that record is the only thing that would say afterwards
that a machine is running something nobody can rebuild.
Also fixed the flag parsing, which stopped at the first positional argument and
silently ignored every flag after it -- so `module add thing.json --source x`
recorded no source at all and said it had succeeded. The host's own parser
documents this exact footgun and I wrote it again anyway.
The half of the module system that was built and never proved. Unassigning i3
removed i3's file AND xorg's, because xorg was only there to satisfy i3 -- the
node's own record agrees, and the resolution the mesh sends no longer mentions
either.
That works because a declaration removes what the mesh previously declared and
nothing else, which is 04-ISSUES/010's fix carrying its weight here: the
substrate the machine raised for itself is untouched by any of it.
Tests for the storage layer, which had none. The ones worth naming:
A module a machine is running cannot be forgotten -- not a fault, it means the
mesh would lose the ability to describe what is on that machine. Removing a
node DOES take its assignments, and the asymmetry is deliberate: a node that is
gone cannot be running anything.
A node that has never reported has NO capabilities rather than all of them.
That refuses anything needing one, which is wrong but visible -- where assuming
it can do everything would assign work it cannot do and find out on the
machine. And a capability the node reported as ABSENT is not counted: reading
the list without the verdict would let a module onto a machine that said no.
`overlay push` is gone, replaced by `push`, which sends a node its network and
its modules as one declaration. Two commands that overlap is how a mesh ends up
half-configured by whichever was run. The old name answers with where to go,
and answers before opening a database -- needing one would turn a redirect into
a connection error.
The gap that has been named at the end of every report for a week. Until now a
declaration came from a person handing over a file; now it comes from what was
assigned, resolved against the catalogue, and the control plane is deciding
rather than relaying.
Everything from the module conversation, built and run on real machines:
assign laptop i3 -> accepted, brings xorg, because nothing else provides
it and there was no choice to make
assign laptop sway -> refused: xorg and wayland both claim the-seat
assign laptop editor -> refused: three modules provide a shell -- bash,
fish, zsh -- choose one
assign laptop zsh -> accepted, and the editor's requirement is answered
bash, fish beside it -> fine, nothing is claimed
Claims rather than pairwise exclusion, so a third display server would say what
it claims and need no edit to xorg or wayland. Scoped to node, site or mesh:
two DHCP servers at one site collide and at two sites do not, and the mesh-wide
one is the hub said as a claim instead of hard-coded.
Some conflicts cost no manifest field at all. The refusal above names the seat
AND the two files, because the mesh already holds every resource of every
module -- neither i3 nor sway knows the other exists.
Resource identities carry their module, so two modules may both call something
"config" without the second silently replacing the first. What a service
reflects is qualified the same way, or it would name a resource that no longer
exists and stop being restarted when its own configuration changes.
Nothing is sent until every node resolves. A push that configured three and
refused on the fourth would leave the mesh in a state nobody asked for, and the
fourth is exactly where a claim collision appears.
One real flaw found by using it rather than by testing it: assigning zsh did
not satisfy a requirement for a shell. Requirements were counted against the
catalogue without first asking what the set already offers, so "choose one and
assign it" named three modules and then ignored the one you chose. The remedy
was useless and every test passed.
09-the-node-lifecycle asks for this in as many words -- *how long it has been
disconnected is a fact the mesh must hold, and nothing holds it today. Without
it, a node running last month's assignments looks exactly like one that is
current.* Now it holds it.
`node list` says "here", "out of touch 4m", or "never spoken", and the third is
kept distinct from the second on purpose: a node that has never spoken did not
finish joining, and a node last heard from a month ago is running a month-old
picture of the mesh. Those need different responses from a person.
A bare word that a node is there moves last_seen and touches nothing else. It
is not an account of what the machine holds, and recording it as one would
replace the recovery copy with an empty list every minute -- so a rebuilding
node would then be told it owns nothing and remove whatever it found. There is
a test for exactly that.
Heard is silent in the log. A node saying it is there every minute would fill
the log with the ordinary case, and a log where the ordinary case is loud is a
log nobody reads.
Verified in the lab across the threshold, both directions.
jschoubben