Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Minor broker refactoring and cleanup #349

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

adombeck
Copy link
Contributor

Remove an unused field and move a function that's not provider-specific from the provider interface to the broker. See commit messages for details.

@adombeck adombeck marked this pull request as ready for review January 29, 2025 16:06
@adombeck adombeck requested a review from a team as a code owner January 29, 2025 16:06
Copy link
Member

@didrocks didrocks left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense on moving the provider specific to non provider for now.

One question about firstSelectedMode. The idea was IIRC:

  • you have an authentication, you select one auth method
  • then, broker decides it’s MFA (which is not the current QR code method), and either ask for another auth method or is password definition/change (which on the local password definition is supported)

-> The goal was that next time you select the same user, the first auth method (if available) is auto-selected. Does this still work or does it work because by chance, we don’t set in the last local password reset the second time you log in?

@adombeck
Copy link
Contributor Author

The goal was that next time you select the same user, the first auth method (if available) is auto-selected. Does this still work or does it work because by chance, we don’t set in the last local password reset the second time you log in?

AFAICT there is no functionality implemented for that. The PAM module currently autoselects the first element in the list of authentication modes returned by the broker in the GetAuthenticationModes call. That list has password as the first element if a token exists on disk, else it starts with device_auth_qr.

The firstSelectedMode was set but never used.
The decision which authentication modes are offered is (currently) not
provider-specific. Lets make the interface simpler until we actually
have a need to make it provider-specific.
@adombeck adombeck force-pushed the broker-refactorings branch from 3897095 to ac0a46a Compare February 4, 2025 10:09
@@ -277,6 +273,33 @@ func (b *Broker) GetAuthenticationModes(sessionID string, supportedUILayouts []m
return authModes, nil
}

func (b *Broker) availableAuthModes(session session, tokenExists bool, endpoints map[string]struct{}) (availableModes []string, err error) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IIRC, the purpose of this being considered provider-specific was to allow them more control over what is or isn't supported (i.e. EntraID can have modes that Google doesn't and so on...). It also makes sense to have it work as:
"general broker API: ok, this is what I have and what I can do, how will we do this?
provider API: Ok, so let's go like this..."

I know this is not something we interact with currently (and it results in a horrific function signature), but is it worth refactoring this now to maybe have to redo this later? We know that authd can handle TOTPs, codes and so on, so it could be something that we allow in the future...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants