This PR is part of a series (#11311).
If the user authenticating to an API call is a Forgejo site administrator, or a Forgejo repo administrator, a wide variety of permission and ownership checks in the API are either bypassed, or are bypassable. If a user has created an access token with restricted resources, I understand the intent of the user is to create a token which has a layer of risk reduction in the event that the token is lost/leaked to an attacker. For this reason, it makes sense to me that restricted scope access tokens shouldn't inherit the owner's administrator access.
My intent is that repo-specific access tokens [will only be able to access specific authorization scopes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/design/issues/50#issuecomment-11093951), probably: `repository:read`, `repository:write`, `issue:read`, `issue:write`, (`organization:read` / `user:read` maybe). This means that *most* admin access is not intended to be affected by this because repo-specific access tokens won't have, for example, `admin:write` scope. However, administrative access still grants elevated permissions in some areas that are relevant to these scopes, and need to be restricted:
- The `?sudo=otheruser` query parameter allows site administrators to impersonate other users in the API.
- Repository management rules are different for a site administrator, allowing them to create repos for another user, create repos in another organization, migrate a repository to an arbitrary owner, and transfer a repository to a prviate organization.
- Administrators have access to extra data through some APIs which would be in scope: the detailed configuration of branch protection rules, the some details of repository deploy keys (which repo, and which scope -- seems odd), (user:read -- user SSH keys, activity feeds of private users, user profiles of private users, user webhook configurations).
- Pull request reviews have additional perms for repo administrators, including the ability to dismiss PR reviews, delete PR reviews, and view draft PR reviews.
- Repo admins and site admins can comment on locked issues, and related to comments can edit or delete other user's comments and attachments.
- Repo admins can manage and view logged time on behalf of other users.
A handful of these permissions may make sense for repo-specific access tokens, but most of them clearly exceed the risk that would be expected from creating a limited scope access token. I'd generally prefer to take a restrictive approach, and we can relax it if real-world use-cases come in -- users will have a workaround of creating an access token without repo-specific restrictions if they are blocked from needed access.
**Breaking:** The administration restrictions introduced in this PR affect both repo-specific access tokens, and existing public-only access tokens.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- Although repo-specific access tokens are not yet exposed to end users, the breaking changes to public-only tokens will be visible to users and require release notes.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11468
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
This PR fixes a number of typos throughout the entire repository. Running https://github.com/crate-ci/typos and then changing all occurrences that I naively deemed "safe enough".
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10753
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Christoph Mewes <christoph@kubermatic.com>
Co-committed-by: Christoph Mewes <christoph@kubermatic.com>
Adds new a function, `AcceptsGithubResponse`, to the API router context struct to check if the requests accepts a Github response. Although Forgejo API will never be compatible with the Github API, historically Forgejo's API has been designed to follow that of Github closely and we know that a lot of tooling that uses the Github API can be used against the Forgejo API with little to no problem.
As a meet in the middle solution, this function can be used to respond with a more appropriate response that follows the Github API. This allows Forgejo to avoid breaking compatibility with existing users of the API and allows the API to be oh so slightly more compatible with that of Github for API clients that expect a Github response.
Because the `upload_url` field was added purely to match the Github API (forgejo/forgejo#580), it is fair to actually make it compatible with how the Github API intended it to be and that is by adding `{?name,label}` which is used by Github's Oktokit.
Only add `{?name,label}` when Forgejo knows the request accepts a Github response. This avoids breaking the API compatibility with non-Github API clients.
ResolvesCodeberg/Community#2132
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9285
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: oliverpool <oliverpool@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
- Some endpoints (`/api/v1/repos/*/*/raw`, `/api/v1/repos/*/*/media`, ...;
anything that uses both `context.ReferencesGitRepo()` and
`context.RepoRefForAPI` really) returned a 500 when the repository was
completely empty. This resulted in some confusion in
https://github.com/datalad/datalad-usage-dashboard/issues/47 because the
same request for a non-existent file in a repository could sometimes
generate a 404 and sometimes a 500, depending on if the git repository
is initialized at all or not.
Returning a 404 is more appropriate here, since this isn't an
unexpected internal error, but just another way of not finding the
requested data.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7003
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
Co-committed-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
- Use a 404 error when the issue not found instead of returning an internal server error.
- Resolves#4005
- Added integration test.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/6885
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: ThomasBoom89 <thomasboom89@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: ThomasBoom89 <thomasboom89@noreply.codeberg.org>
Port of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/32204
(cherry picked from commit d6d3c96e6555fc91b3e2ef21f4d8d7475564bb3e)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/api.go
services/context/api.go
trivial context conflicts
- This is in the spirit of #5090.
- Move to a fork of gitea.com/go-chi/cache,
code.forgejo.org/go-chi/cache. It removes unused code (a lot of
adapters, that can't be used by Forgejo) and unused dependencies (see
go.sum). Also updates existing dependencies.
8c64f1a362..main
This is an implementation of a quota engine, and the API routes to
manage its settings. This does *not* contain any enforcement code: this
is just the bedrock, the engine itself.
The goal of the engine is to be flexible and future proof: to be nimble
enough to build on it further, without having to rewrite large parts of
it.
It might feel a little more complicated than necessary, because the goal
was to be able to support scenarios only very few Forgejo instances
need, scenarios the vast majority of mostly smaller instances simply do
not care about. The goal is to support both big and small, and for that,
we need a solid, flexible foundation.
There are thee big parts to the engine: counting quota use, setting
limits, and evaluating whether the usage is within the limits. Sounds
simple on paper, less so in practice!
Quota counting
==============
Quota is counted based on repo ownership, whenever possible, because
repo owners are in ultimate control over the resources they use: they
can delete repos, attachments, everything, even if they don't *own*
those themselves. They can clean up, and will always have the permission
and access required to do so. Would we count quota based on the owning
user, that could lead to situations where a user is unable to free up
space, because they uploaded a big attachment to a repo that has been
taken private since. It's both more fair, and much safer to count quota
against repo owners.
This means that if user A uploads an attachment to an issue opened
against organization O, that will count towards the quota of
organization O, rather than user A.
One's quota usage stats can be queried using the `/user/quota` API
endpoint. To figure out what's eating into it, the
`/user/repos?order_by=size`, `/user/quota/attachments`,
`/user/quota/artifacts`, and `/user/quota/packages` endpoints should be
consulted. There's also `/user/quota/check?subject=<...>` to check
whether the signed-in user is within a particular quota limit.
Quotas are counted based on sizes stored in the database.
Setting quota limits
====================
There are different "subjects" one can limit usage for. At this time,
only size-based limits are implemented, which are:
- `size:all`: As the name would imply, the total size of everything
Forgejo tracks.
- `size:repos:all`: The total size of all repositories (not including
LFS).
- `size:repos:public`: The total size of all public repositories (not
including LFS).
- `size:repos:private`: The total size of all private repositories (not
including LFS).
- `sizeall`: The total size of all git data (including all
repositories, and LFS).
- `sizelfs`: The size of all git LFS data (either in private or
public repos).
- `size:assets:all`: The size of all assets tracked by Forgejo.
- `size:assets:attachments:all`: The size of all kinds of attachments
tracked by Forgejo.
- `size:assets:attachments:issues`: Size of all attachments attached to
issues, including issue comments.
- `size:assets:attachments:releases`: Size of all attachments attached
to releases. This does *not* include automatically generated archives.
- `size:assets:artifacts`: Size of all Action artifacts.
- `size:assets:packages:all`: Size of all Packages.
- `size:wiki`: Wiki size
Wiki size is currently not tracked, and the engine will always deem it
within quota.
These subjects are built into Rules, which set a limit on *all* subjects
within a rule. Thus, we can create a rule that says: "1Gb limit on all
release assets, all packages, and git LFS, combined". For a rule to
stand, the total sum of all subjects must be below the rule's limit.
Rules are in turn collected into groups. A group is just a name, and a
list of rules. For a group to stand, all of its rules must stand. Thus,
if we have a group with two rules, one that sets a combined 1Gb limit on
release assets, all packages, and git LFS, and another rule that sets a
256Mb limit on packages, if the user has 512Mb of packages, the group
will not stand, because the second rule deems it over quota. Similarly,
if the user has only 128Mb of packages, but 900Mb of release assets, the
group will not stand, because the combined size of packages and release
assets is over the 1Gb limit of the first rule.
Groups themselves are collected into Group Lists. A group list stands
when *any* of the groups within stand. This allows an administrator to
set conservative defaults, but then place select users into additional
groups that increase some aspect of their limits.
To top it off, it is possible to set the default quota groups a user
belongs to in `app.ini`. If there's no explicit assignment, the engine
will use the default groups. This makes it possible to avoid having to
assign each and every user a list of quota groups, and only those need
to be explicitly assigned who need a different set of groups than the
defaults.
If a user has any quota groups assigned to them, the default list will
not be considered for them.
The management APIs
===================
This commit contains the engine itself, its unit tests, and the quota
management APIs. It does not contain any enforcement.
The APIs are documented in-code, and in the swagger docs, and the
integration tests can serve as an example on how to use them.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Since `modules/context` has to depend on `models` and many other
packages, it should be moved from `modules/context` to
`services/context` according to design principles. There is no logic
code change on this PR, only move packages.
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/context` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/context`
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/contexttest` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/contexttest` because of depending on
context
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/upload` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/context/upload` because of depending on
context
(cherry picked from commit 29f149bd9f517225a3c9f1ca3fb0a7b5325af696)
Conflicts:
routers/api/packages/alpine/alpine.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_reaction.go
routers/install/install.go
routers/web/admin/config.go
routers/web/passkey.go
routers/web/repo/search.go
routers/web/repo/setting/default_branch.go
routers/web/user/home.go
routers/web/user/profile.go
tests/integration/editor_test.go
tests/integration/integration_test.go
tests/integration/mirror_push_test.go
trivial context conflicts
also modified all other occurrences in Forgejo specific files
