Skip to content

Conversation

@NickCao
Copy link
Collaborator

@NickCao NickCao commented Feb 13, 2025

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Introduced robust token verification that validates token criteria for enhanced security.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved error handling and logging during credential checks.
    • Streamlined removal of invalid credentials to ensure smoother operational stability.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 13, 2025

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@NickCao has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 23 minutes and 4 seconds before requesting another review.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 595324b and b80dca3.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • internal/controller/client_controller.go (4 hunks)
  • internal/controller/exporter_controller.go (5 hunks)
  • internal/oidc/op.go (1 hunks)

Walkthrough

The changes enhance secret management by improving logging and error handling in the secret existence checks of both client and exporter controllers. In the respective methods, a logger is instantiated from the context; token validity is checked using the Signer; and when a secret is missing or contains an invalid token, errors are managed gracefully, including logging and deletion of the invalid secret. Additionally, a new Verify method is added to the Signer for JWT token validation using jwt.Parse with proper callbacks. No public API changes were introduced.

Changes

File(s) Change Summary
internal/controller/client_controller.go
internal/controller/exporter_controller.go
Enhanced logging and error handling in secret existence methods (clientSecretExists and exporterSecretExists). Now, a logger is instantiated from the context, tokens are verified using the Signer, and invalid secrets are logged and deleted. Logging in reconcileStatusCredential has been updated for clearer context.
internal/oidc/op.go Added a new Verify method to the Signer struct, which uses jwt.Parse (with a callback to return the public key, and checks for valid signing methods, issuer, and audience) to validate JWT tokens, returning nil if the token is valid or an error otherwise.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant C as Controller (Client/Exporter)
    participant L as Logger
    participant S as Secret Store
    participant G as Signer

    C->>L: Instantiate logger from context
    C->>S: Retrieve secret (client or exporter)
    alt Secret not found
       S-->>C: NotFound error
       C->>L: Log secret absence
       C->>C: Return false (or trigger credential creation)
    else Secret found
       C->>G: Verify token from secret
       alt Token valid
          G-->>C: nil
          C->>C: Return true
       else Token invalid
          G-->>C: error
          C->>L: Log invalid token
          C->>S: Delete secret
          C->>C: Return true
       end
    end
Loading
sequenceDiagram
    participant Caller as Caller
    participant S as Signer
    participant J as JWT Parser

    Caller->>S: Call Verify(token)
    S->>J: jwt.Parse(token, callback)
    alt Parsing successful
       J-->>S: Valid token payload
       S-->>Caller: nil
    else Parsing fails
       J-->>S: Error message
       S-->>Caller: error
    end
Loading

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • mangelajo

Poem

I'm a hopping rabbit with a coder's delight,
Logging secrets by day and by moonlight.
Checking tokens with my keen little eyes,
Deleting the bad ones as they vanish and die.
With carrots and code, my heart takes flight!
🥕🐇


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
internal/controller/client_controller.go (1)

96-100: Improve error logging for token validation failures.

The current implementation logs a generic "invalid" message. More detailed error information would help with debugging.

Apply this diff to enhance error logging:

 token, ok := secret.Data["token"]
-if !ok || r.Signer.Verify(string(token)) != nil {
-    logger.Info("reconcileStatusCredential: the client secret is invalid", "client", client.Name)
+if !ok {
+    logger.Info("reconcileStatusCredential: token missing in client secret", "client", client.Name)
+    return false, r.Delete(ctx, secret)
+}
+if err := r.Signer.Verify(string(token)); err != nil {
+    logger.Info("reconcileStatusCredential: invalid token in client secret",
+        "client", client.Name,
+        "error", err)
     return false, r.Delete(ctx, secret)
 }
internal/controller/exporter_controller.go (1)

108-113: Apply consistent error logging for token validation failures.

For consistency with the client controller, enhance the error logging here as well.

Apply this diff to maintain consistency:

 token, ok := secret.Data["token"]
-if !ok || r.Signer.Verify(string(token)) != nil {
-    logger.Info("reconcileStatusCredential: the exporter secret is invalid", "exporter", exporter.Name)
+if !ok {
+    logger.Info("reconcileStatusCredential: token missing in exporter secret", "exporter", exporter.Name)
+    return false, r.Delete(ctx, secret)
+}
+if err := r.Signer.Verify(string(token)); err != nil {
+    logger.Info("reconcileStatusCredential: invalid token in exporter secret",
+        "exporter", exporter.Name,
+        "error", err)
     return false, r.Delete(ctx, secret)
 }
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 36d6f1c and 595324b.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • internal/controller/client_controller.go (2 hunks)
  • internal/controller/exporter_controller.go (3 hunks)
  • internal/oidc/op.go (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
  • GitHub Check: deploy-kind
  • GitHub Check: e2e-tests

@mangelajo mangelajo merged commit d4af727 into main Feb 13, 2025
6 checks passed
This was referenced Feb 17, 2025
@NickCao NickCao deleted the token-followup branch February 28, 2025 14:15
@mangelajo mangelajo added this to the 0.6.0 milestone May 8, 2025
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