We do it this way round so that only the "owner" can delete the access token (i.e. `/logout/all` by the "owner" also deletes that token, but `/logout/all` by the "target user" doesn't).
A future PR will add an API for creating such a token.
When the target user and authenticated entity are different the `Processed request` log line will be logged with a: `{@admin:server as @bob:server} ...`. I'm not convinced by that format (especially since it adds spaces in there, making it harder to use `cut -d ' '` to chop off the start of log lines). Suggestions welcome.
This allows support users to be created even on MAU limits via
the admin API. Support users are excluded from MAU after creation,
so it makes sense to exclude them in creation - except if the
whole host is in disabled state.
Signed-off-by: Jason Robinson <jasonr@matrix.org>
First of all, let's get rid of `TOKEN_NOT_FOUND_HTTP_STATUS`. It was a hack we
did at one point when it was possible to return either a 403 or a 401 if the
creds were missing. We always return a 401 in these cases now (thankfully), so
it's not needed.
Let's also stop abusing `AuthError` for these cases. Honestly they have nothing
that relates them to the other places that `AuthError` is used, other than the
fact that they are loosely under the 'Auth' banner. It makes no sense for them
to share exception classes.
Instead, let's add a couple of new exception classes: `InvalidClientTokenError`
and `MissingClientTokenError`, for the `M_UNKNOWN_TOKEN` and `M_MISSING_TOKEN`
cases respectively - and an `InvalidClientCredentialsError` base class for the
two of them.
this is only used in one place, so it's clearer if we inline it and reduce the
API surface.
Also, fixes a buglet where we would create an access token even if we were
about to block the user (we would never return the AT, so the user could never
use it, but it was still created and added to the db.)
Allow for the creation of a support user.
A support user can access the server, join rooms, interact with other users, but does not appear in the user directory nor does it contribute to monthly active user limits.
Record the device_id when we add a client ip; it's somewhat redundant as we
could get it via the access_token, but it will make querying rather easier.
This tracks data about the entity which made the request. This is
instead of passing around a tuple, which requires call-site
modifications every time a new piece of optional context is passed
around.
I tried to introduce a User object. I gave up.
This follows the same flows-based flow as regular registration, but as
the only implemented flow has no requirements, it auto-succeeds. In the
future, other flows (e.g. captcha) may be required, so clients should
treat this like the regular registration flow choices.
A couple of weird caveats:
* If we can't validate your macaroon, we fall back to checking that
your access token is in the DB, and ignoring the failure
* Even if we can validate your macaroon, we still have to hit the DB to
get the access token ID, which we pretend is a device ID all over the
codebase.
This mostly adds the interesting code, and points out the two pieces we
need to delete (and necessary conditions) in order to fix the above
caveats.
