Using negative permissions, this role prevents a user's ability to
create & delete a workspace within a given organization.
Workspaces are uniquely owned by an org and a user, so the org has to
supercede the user permission with a negative permission.
# Use case
Organizations must be able to restrict a member's ability to create a
workspace. This permission is implicitly granted (see
https://github.com/coder/coder/issues/16546#issuecomment-2655437860).
To revoke this permission, the solution chosen was to use negative
permissions in a built in role called `WorkspaceCreationBan`.
# Rational
Using negative permissions is new territory, and not ideal. However,
workspaces are in a unique position.
Workspaces have 2 owners. The organization and the user. To prevent
users from creating a workspace in another organization, an [implied
negative
permission](36d9f5ddb3/coderd/rbac/policy.rego (L172-L192))
is used. So the truth table looks like: _how to read this table
[here](36d9f5ddb3/coderd/rbac/README.md (roles))_
| Role (example) | Site | Org | User | Result |
|-----------------|------|------|------|--------|
| non-org-member | \_ | N | YN\_ | N |
| user | \_ | \_ | Y | Y |
| WorkspaceBan | \_ | N | Y | Y |
| unauthenticated | \_ | \_ | \_ | N |
This new role, `WorkspaceCreationBan` is the same truth table condition
as if the user was not a member of the organization (when doing a
workspace create/delete). So this behavior **is not entirely new**.
<details>
<summary>How to do it without a negative permission</summary>
The alternate approach would be to remove the implied permission, and
grant it via and organization role. However this would add new behavior
that an organizational role has the ability to grant a user permissions
on their own resources?
It does not make sense for an org role to prevent user from changing
their profile information for example. So the only option is to create a
new truth table column for resources that are owned by both an
organization and a user.
| Role (example) | Site | Org |User+Org| User | Result |
|-----------------|------|------|--------|------|--------|
| non-org-member | \_ | N | \_ | \_ | N |
| user | \_ | \_ | \_ | \_ | N |
| WorkspaceAllow | \_ | \_ | Y | \_ | Y |
| unauthenticated | \_ | \_ | \_ | \_ | N |
Now a user has no opinion on if they can create a workspace, which feels
a little wrong. A user should have the authority over what is theres.
There is fundamental _philosophical_ question of "Who does a workspace
belong to?". The user has some set of autonomy, yet it is the
organization that controls it's existence. A head scratcher 🤔
</details>
## Will we need more negative built in roles?
There are few resources that have shared ownership. Only
`ResourceOrganizationMember` and `ResourceGroupMember`. Since negative
permissions is intended to revoke access to a shared resource, then
**no.** **This is the only one we need**.
Classic resources like `ResourceTemplate` are entirely controlled by the
Organization permissions. And resources entirely in the user control
(like user profile) are only controlled by `User` permissions.
![Uploading Screenshot 2025-02-26 at 22.26.52.png…]()
---------
Co-authored-by: Jaayden Halko <jaayden.halko@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: ケイラ <mckayla@hey.com>
This pull requests adds the necessary migrations and queries to support
presets within the coderd database. Future PRs will build functionality
to the provisioners and the frontend.
Relates to https://github.com/coder/coder/issues/15894:
- Adds `coderdenttest.NewExternalProvisionerDaemonTerraform`
- Adds integration-style test coverage for creating a workspace with
`coder_workspace_tags` specified in `main.tf`
- Modifies `coderd/wsbuilder` to fetch template version variables and
includes them in eval context for evaluating `coder_workspace_tags`
- Refactors `checkProvisioners` into `db2sdk.MatchedProvisioners`
- Adds a separate RBAC subject just for reading provisioner daemons
- Adds matched provisioners information to additional endpoints relating to
workspace builds and templates
-Updates existing unit tests for above endpoints
-Adds API endpoint for matched provisioners of template dry-run job
-Updates CLI to show warning when creating/starting/stopping/deleting
workspaces for which no provisoners are available
---------
Co-authored-by: Danny Kopping <danny@coder.com>
Before db_metrics were all or nothing. Now `InTx` metrics are always recorded, and query metrics are opt in.
Adds instrumentation & logging around serialization failures in the database.
Removes our pseudo rbac resources like `WorkspaceApplicationConnect` in favor of additional verbs like `ssh`. This is to make more intuitive permissions for building custom roles.
The source of truth is now `policy.go`
Just moved `rbac.Action` -> `policy.Action`. This is for the stacked PR to not have circular dependencies when doing autogen. Without this, the autogen can produce broken golang code, which prevents the autogen from compiling.
So just avoiding circular dependencies. Doing this in it's own PR to reduce LoC diffs in the primary PR, since this has 0 functional changes.
* chore: add /v2 to import module path
go mod requires semantic versioning with versions greater than 1.x
This was a mechanical update by running:
```
go install github.com/marwan-at-work/mod/cmd/mod@latest
mod upgrade
```
Migrate generated files to import /v2
* Fix gen
