-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 73
fix(event-ledger): return 401 locally for requests with no Authorization header #1968
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
Open
shelleyshen-0
wants to merge
5
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
fix/event-ledger/401-missing-authorization-header
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
9e7756a
fix(event-ledger): return 401 locally for requests with no Authorizat…
shelleyshen-0 ddce335
Merge branch 'main' into fix/event-ledger/401-missing-authorization-h…
shelleyshen-0 ad3a04c
fix(event-ledger): reject empty and whitespace-only Bearer tokens
shelleyshen-0 74e15cf
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/fix/event-ledger/401-missing-aut…
shelleyshen-0 b7e1a01
Merge branch 'main' into fix/event-ledger/401-missing-authorization-h…
shelleyshen-0 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need
policy:in the log message?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am a bit confused. Does the endpoint accept both JWT and api-key as bearer tokens? If yes, should Event Ledger call UAM both when JWT and api-key are specified as bearer tokens? What does the rego policy do when a JWT is passed to UAM?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're right, it's redundant — the caller field already shows this came from policy.go:
sample log message:
2026-09-16T20:07:47.697340094Z {"level":"warn","ts":1789589267.697265,"msg":"policy: no bearer token found in authorization header","service.name":"nvcf-function-deployment-stages-api","service.version":"0.15.2","deployment.environment.name":"prd","trace_id":"f1649b1ce51391fbc568ce428ffcdaa2","span_id":"68366c5e65b604a5","otlp.trace_id":"f1649b1ce51391fbc568ce428ffcdaa2","caller":"src/control-plane-services/event-ledger/internal/middleware/policy.go:216 [newPolicyMiddleware.func2.1]"}
That said, this prefix convention is already used elsewhere in the file, so I'd rather keep it consistent than special-case this one line. Happy to drop it everywhere if you'd prefer.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah both JWT and api-keys are sent to UAM. I assume UAM checks the scopes of JWT to evaluate whether or not it should be authorized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No. UAM does not check scopes. For SAK, your rego policy can check the scopes in the key and return appropriate result. But, it is not how we do it typically. For JWT, there is no mechanism to check scopes.