fix: address final ackmsg-as-operator review findings
- AlarmAckWriter: classify AuthenticateUser and AddItem/Advise/Write failures by HRESULT for any interop exception (ArgumentException for E_INVALIDARG, UnauthorizedAccessException, COMException); server-gone HRESULTs at AuthenticateUser tear down the registration and report WriteRejected. - Bound the ack item cache with a 256-entry LRU (eviction best-effort UnAdvise+RemoveItem). - After an Unconfirmed ack, drop and re-add the item before the next write so a late OnWriteComplete on the old handle is not credited. - Pass StaRuntime.PumpPendingMessages to the ack writer through a pump-aware alarm handler factory so long completion waits refresh the STA watchdog heartbeat. - Rust CLI: --operator is required for acknowledge-alarm. - Docs: full ack status table, credential-oracle trade-off, upgrade note. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016J6isfcgqy4SB2RK3ZvFvT
This commit is contained in:
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ public string ResolveRequiredScope(object request)
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The `_ => GatewayScopes.Admin` fallback is intentional: any future request type that the resolver does not recognize fails closed, requiring the strongest scope until the resolver is updated. `AcknowledgeAlarm` is treated as a write — it mutates alarm state, mirroring `MxCommandKind.Write*`. It stays `invoke:write` rather than `invoke:secure` because the request carries the operator's own Galaxy credential, which the worker authenticates before the `AckMsg` write; the credential, not the API-key scope, authorizes the identity the Historian records. `StreamAlarms` and `QueryActiveAlarms` share the alarm/event surface with `StreamEvents` and `MxCommandKind.DrainEvents`, so they carry `events:read` (the active-alarm snapshot is the same data reachable through the event surface). All three alarm RPCs are session-less: the scope check is the only authorization gate, since there is no per-session ownership to enforce.
|
||||
The `_ => GatewayScopes.Admin` fallback is intentional: any future request type that the resolver does not recognize fails closed, requiring the strongest scope until the resolver is updated. `AcknowledgeAlarm` is treated as a write — it mutates alarm state, mirroring `MxCommandKind.Write*`. It stays `invoke:write` rather than `invoke:secure` because the request carries the operator's own Galaxy credential, which the worker authenticates before the `AckMsg` write; the credential, not the API-key scope, authorizes the identity the Historian records. The trade-off is that an `invoke:write` key can tell `AuthenticationFailed` (an `MXACCESS_FAILURE` whose diagnostic reports operator authentication failure) apart from every other outcome, which makes `AcknowledgeAlarm` a Galaxy-password oracle for that key — whereas the `AuthenticateUser` command itself requires `invoke:secure`. What bounds it: the caller must already hold a valid, admin-issued, revocable `invoke:write` key, and every acknowledgement is serialized through the single monitor worker session's STA, so guesses run one at a time. The gateway does **not** throttle failed operator authentications: the `ApiKeyFailureLimiter` counts only failed API-key verifications, and the ASP.NET Core rate limiter covers only the dashboard `/login` endpoint. Any lockout after repeated bad passwords comes from the Galaxy security configuration, not from the gateway. Grant `invoke:write` only to clients trusted with that exposure. `StreamAlarms` and `QueryActiveAlarms` share the alarm/event surface with `StreamEvents` and `MxCommandKind.DrainEvents`, so they carry `events:read` (the active-alarm snapshot is the same data reachable through the event surface). All three alarm RPCs are session-less: the scope check is the only authorization gate, since there is no per-session ownership to enforce.
|
||||
|
||||
`MxCommandRequest` is special because it multiplexes many MxAccess operations through a single RPC. The resolver inspects the embedded `MxCommandKind` so each operation gets its own scope:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user