resolvescoder/internal#388
Since site-wide admins and auditors are able to access the members page
of any org, they should have read access to org roles
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>
Provisioner key permissions were never any different than provisioners.
Merging them for a cleaner permission story until they are required (if
ever) to be seperate.
This removed `ResourceProvisionerKey` from RBAC and just uses the
existing `ResourceProvisioner`.
As requested for [this
issue](https://github.com/coder/internal/issues/245) we need to have a
new resource `resources_monitoring` in the agent.
It needs to be parsed from the provisioner and inserted into a new db
table.
Template `use` is now a verb.
- Template admins can `use` all templates (org template admins same in
org)
- Members get the `use` perm from the `everyone` group in the
`group_acl`.
Opting into rego v1. Rego v1 requires `if` for all rule statements.
This PR updates the dependencies and the rego policy itself.
Golang imports upgraded for opa/rego
---------
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Closes https://github.com/coder/coder/issues/15213
This PR enables sending notifications without requiring the auth system
context, instead using a new auth notifier context.
* chore: remove read all provisioners from users
Reading provisioner daemons now extends from org member,
not site wide member.
* update rbac perm test
* add unit test
* chore: implement generalized symmetric difference for set comparison
Going to be used in Organization Sync + maybe group sync. Felt
better to reuse, rather than copy
* - allow group members to read basic Group info
- allow group members to see they are part of the group, but not see that information about other members
- add a GetGroupMembersCountByGroupID SQL query, which allows group members to see members count without revealing other information about the members
- add the group_members_expanded db view
- rewrite group member queries to use the group_members_expanded view
- add the RBAC ResourceGroupMember and add it to relevant roles
- rewrite GetGroupMembersByGroupID permission checks
- make the GroupMember type contain all user fields
- fix type issues coming from replacing User with GroupMember in group member queries
- add the MemberTotalCount field to codersdk.Group
- display `group.total_member_count` instead of `group.members.length` on the account page
* chore: authz 'any_org' to return if at least 1 org has perms
Allows checking if a user can do an action in any organization,
rather than a specific one. Allows asking general questions on the
UI to determine which elements to show.
* more strict, add comments to policy
* add unit tests and extend to /authcheck api
* make field optional
* chore: generate rbac resource types to typescript
The existing typesGenerated.ts cannot support this as the generator
only inspects the types, not the values. So traversing the value AST
would have to be added. The rbac gen is already used for the sdk,
this extends it to the typescript
* chore: refactor user subject logic to be in 1 place
* test: implement test to assert deleted custom roles are omitted
* add unit test for deleted role
* chore: create type for unique role names
Using `string` was confusing when something should be combined with
org context, and when not to. Naming this new name, "RoleIdentifier"
Organization member's table is already scoped to an organization.
Rolename should avoid having the org_id appended.
Wipes all existing organization role assignments, which should not be used anyway.
Includes db schema and dbauthz layer for upserting custom roles. Unit test in `customroles_test.go` verify against escalating permissions through this feature.
Verifies our built in roles are valid according to our policy.go. Working on custom roles requires the dynamic roles to adhere to these rules. Feels fair the built in ones do too.
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.
