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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
`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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
jschoubben