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

Log blocking rule in resolver #1489

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

zc-devs
Copy link
Contributor

@zc-devs zc-devs commented May 21, 2024

Follow up of #1460 (review)
Closes #1458

Copy link
Collaborator

@ThinkChaos ThinkChaos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for following up with this!

I put comments about mostly minor things. but some of it does require changing a bunch of code so I tried to put suggestions those.

Could you also please add a couple checks in tests that return a positive mach for the rule? Alternatively, add some basic dedicated tests for that.
If it can be any help, the way I'd do it is update the tests to not assert anything. make the function print the rule before returning. and add an Expect(false) at the end so ginkgo prints the output and you can copy past the rules instead of typing them out.
Some kind of snapshot testing would be nice here, but that's more work and we don't have anything like that already.

And just to be explicit about this: nothing is set in stone feel free to push back on anything :)

cache/stringcache/in_memory_grouped_cache.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ import (

type stringCache interface {
elementCount() int
contains(searchString string) bool
contains(searchString string) (bool, string)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it'd be nice to swap the return values so it matches map:

Suggested change
contains(searchString string) (bool, string)
contains(searchString string) (string, bool)

I'll put suggestions for the other uses, hopefully I don't miss anything!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would not do this with contains method. The name implies that the main return type should be boolean. Consider error return value:

contains(searchString string) (bool, err)

err should be at the end as it is not the main response from method.

Could we rename contains to match and get rid of boolean?

// returns rule if matched, otherwise empty string
func match(searchString string) (string)

@@ -36,12 +36,12 @@ func (cache stringMap) elementCount() int {
return count
}

func (cache stringMap) contains(searchString string) bool {
func (cache stringMap) contains(searchString string) (bool, string) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
func (cache stringMap) contains(searchString string) (bool, string) {
func (cache stringMap) contains(searchString string) (string, bool) {

normalized := normalizeEntry(searchString)
searchLen := len(normalized)

if searchLen == 0 {
return false
return false, ""
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
return false, ""
return "", false

@@ -54,11 +54,11 @@ func (cache stringMap) contains(searchString string) bool {
if blockRule == normalized {
log.PrefixedLog("string_map").Debugf("block rule '%s' matched with '%s'", blockRule, searchString)

return true
return true, blockRule
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
return true, blockRule
return blockRule, true

if groups := r.matches(groupsToCheck, r.allowlistMatcher, domain); len(groups) > 0 {
logger.WithField("groups", groups).Debugf("domain is allowlisted")
if matches := r.matches(groupsToCheck, r.allowlistMatcher, domain); len(matches) > 0 {
logger.WithField("groups", maps.Keys(matches)).Debugf("domain is allowlisted")
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we can change this to log all the info:

Suggested change
logger.WithField("groups", maps.Keys(matches)).Debugf("domain is allowlisted")
logger.WithField("matches", matches).Debug("domain is allowlisted")

return r.handleBlocked(logger, request, request.Req.Question[0], fmt.Sprintf("BLOCKED %s (%s)", tName,
strings.Join(groups, ",")))
if matches := r.matches(groupsToCheck, r.allowlistMatcher, entryToCheck); len(matches) > 0 {
logger.WithField("groups", maps.Keys(matches)).Debugf("%s is allowlisted", tName)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
logger.WithField("groups", maps.Keys(matches)).Debugf("%s is allowlisted", tName)
logger.WithField("matches", matches).Debug("%s is allowlisted", tName)

Comment on lines +389 to +395
var entries []string
for group, rule := range matches {
entries = append(entries, strings.Join([]string{group, rule}, ":"))
}

msg := fmt.Sprintf("BLOCKED (%s)", strings.Join(entries, ", "))
resp, err := r.handleBlocked(logger, request, question, msg)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you pass matches to handleBlock instead of msg so we can move the formatting there and deduplicate it with Resolve?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

resolver/blocking_resolver.go:383 passes a string:

resp, err := r.handleBlocked(logger, request, question, "BLOCKED (ALLOWLIST ONLY)")

Could we return custom type from r.matches(...) and override String() method?

Comment on lines +427 to +434
var entries []string
for group, rule := range matches {
entries = append(entries, strings.Join([]string{group, rule}, ":"))
}

msg := fmt.Sprintf("BLOCKED %s (%s)", tName, strings.Join(entries, ", "))

return r.handleBlocked(logger, request, request.Req.Question[0], msg)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also pass maches to handleBlocked here.

resolver/blocking_resolver.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
zc-devs and others added 5 commits May 23, 2024 17:29
Co-authored-by: ThinkChaos <ThinkChaos@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: ThinkChaos <ThinkChaos@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: ThinkChaos <ThinkChaos@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: ThinkChaos <ThinkChaos@users.noreply.github.com>
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 25, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.33333% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 94.28%. Comparing base (fe84ab8) to head (9e59fab).
Report is 77 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
resolver/blocking_resolver.go 94.44% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1489      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.88%   94.28%   +0.39%     
==========================================
  Files          78       78              
  Lines        6361     5018    -1343     
==========================================
- Hits         5972     4731    -1241     
+ Misses        300      196     -104     
- Partials       89       91       +2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@zc-devs
Copy link
Contributor Author

zc-devs commented May 25, 2024

Could you also please add a couple checks in tests ...
... copy past the rules instead of typing them out.

Sorry, I don't understand what you want. There are checks for the rules in blocking_resolver_test.go. And I've copy-pasted tests, not typed manually. Could you provide an example?

@0xERR0R 0xERR0R added this to the v0.25 milestone May 26, 2024
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.

Show the rule which is the cause of blocked request
3 participants