feat: let an OAuth2 refresh narrow the granted scope - #28751
Conversation
Add ScopesCover, which reports whether every permission a requested scope grants is also granted by at least one of a set of allowed scopes. It expands both sides and compares the resulting permissions, so coder:workspaces.access covers workspace:read even though it never names it, and coder:all covers everything. The comparison is deliberately asymmetric. Positive permissions on the allowed side that it does not model are dropped, which can only make the answer stricter. Anything unmodelled on the requested side is an error instead, because ignoring it would answer "covered" about authority that was never compared. Negative permissions are the exception and fail closed on both sides, since dropping an anti-grant from the ceiling would widen it rather than narrow it. Add CanonicalScopeName, which maps the backward-compatibility aliases IsExternalScope accepts onto the names the api_key_scope enum stores. IsExternalScope answers whether a name may be requested, not how that name is spelled once persisted, so a caller that stores what it validated has to canonicalize in between. Both functions are added without production callers. The OAuth2 authorize endpoint uses them to negotiate a requested scope against an app's configured allowlist, which follows in a separate change.
State the rule the guards enforce, site-level grants only, instead of describing the asymmetry abstractly. The allow-list case is now covered alongside negative permissions, which the previous wording omitted even though the code treats them identically. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
ScopesCover checked the requested scope for org and user grants but not the allowed scopes, whose User and ByOrgID permissions were discarded unread. A scope granting workspace:* at site level while negating workspace:delete for the user would have covered a request for workspace:delete, because the negative that carves the action back out lives in the half coverage never examined. No catalog scope populates those fields today, so nothing was miscompared in practice. The gap mattered because these guards exist to keep the comparison fail-closed, and this one failed open. Both sides now run the same checkCoverable helper, which refuses a scope carrying org or user grants, a negative permission, or a resource allow list. The helper names the side, so an error reports which half of the comparison was undecidable. The doc comment claimed an unmodeled grant on the allowed side is dropped; nothing is dropped now, so it is gone. ScopesCover builds every Scope it reads from ExpandScope, which cannot produce these shapes, so the guards are unreachable through the public API. scopes_internal_test.go drives synthetic Scope values through checkCoverable instead. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
permissionCovered skipped negative permissions, but checkCoverable now refuses a scope carrying one on either side, so the branch was dead. It was never defense in depth. Had a negative reached it, skipping the anti-grant would leave any wildcard beside it free to match, and a scope granting workspace:* while negating workspace:delete would report workspace:delete as covered. The skip widened the ceiling while looking like it narrowed it. The precondition moves to the doc comment, which names checkCoverable as what enforces it and says why subsumption cannot answer the question an anti-grant poses. No behavior change: the branch was unreachable. permissionCovered goes from 88.9% to 100% statement coverage.
Five review findings on the coverage tests, all in scopes_test.go. CanonicalScopeName had both alias arms at zero coverage. Its only caller in the tests loops over ExternalScopeNames, which yields canonical names only, so the canonicalizing call returned its input unchanged on every iteration and read as coverage without being any. Swapping the arms, so that `all` persisted application_connect and the reverse, kept the suite green. TestCanonicalScopeName now pins the mapping and the loop appends the aliases, taking the function from 50% to 100%. The appended aliases raise branch coverage and assert a requestable name is comparable once canonicalized, but they cannot detect a swapped mapping, since both aliases resolve to scopes that cover themselves. The comment says so rather than implying the loop guards more than it does. CompositeDoesNotCoverNonMember and CompositeDoesNotCoverWiderActionOnCoveredResource both asked for an ungranted action on a resource coder:workspaces.access does grant, so they tested one branch twice and left "resource not granted at all" untested. They are now split along that line, with names that describe which failure each one is. The three wantErr rows shared a bare require.Error, so any error passed any row and a bug failing every input on the requested side would have left the allowed-side row green. wantErrContains replaces the bool and names the side. Rewording the allowed-side message as the requested-side one now fails three rows that previously all passed. Alias rejection was tested for one alias on one side. Both aliases are now tested on both sides. The allowed-side rows are the ones that earn their place: they are what would catch someone canonicalizing inside the allowed loop and widening the contract without a caller asking.
ScopesCover expanded and compared in a single pass, so the invariant guards only ever ran on scopes ExpandScope had produced. Every such scope satisfies them, which left the guards unverified in the position that matters: the existing test called checkCoverable directly and could not tell whether ScopesCover consulted it on both sides, or at all. Split the comparison into scopesCoverExpanded, which takes already expanded scopes paired with the names they came from. Tests drive synthetic Scope values through it, so dropping the guard from either side now fails, as does an allowed scope that grants every workspace action except delete answering a request for delete. Expanding every allowed scope before any guard runs reorders two error paths against each other: a requested scope that fails a guard alongside an unknown allowed name now reports the expansion failure rather than the guard failure. Both return (false, error), and no ScopeName reaches that combination today.
…ontract The knowledge of which spellings are backward-compatibility aliases lived in two switches, one in IsExternalScope and one in CanonicalScopeName, kept in step by discipline. Drift between them is asymmetric: a name the first accepts and the second does not rewrite is declared public and then fails to expand on every request naming it. Both now read one table, so they agree by construction, and an internal test walks that table asserting each alias is public, resolves to a public name, and resolves to one ExpandScope accepts. A third alias is covered the day it is added. ScopesCover stated "names must be canonical" in prose only, which is wrong for exactly the two inputs IsExternalScope accepts and ExpandScope does not. The parameters are now canonicalAllowed and canonicalRequested, so the requirement shows up in editor hints at every call site rather than only in a doc comment the caller may not have opened. Naming the parameters was chosen over canonicalizing inside ScopesCover. The single downstream caller already canonicalizes both sides in bulk before comparing, so absorbing the step would remove nothing from it while dissolving the distinction between a public spelling and a stored one at the layer that should hold it.
…roken The site-only, wildcard-allow-list, no-negatives invariant was described on ScopesCover and enforced by its guards, but ExpandScope, which is what produces those values, had no doc comment at all. Someone adding a scope reads ExpandScope and its neighbors; nothing there warned that populating User or adding a negative makes the scope uncomparable. State it there, along with the canonicalization requirement, and name the consequence rather than just the rule. Also note on ScopesCover that a wildcard request needs a wildcard grant. Enumerating today's concrete actions genuinely is narrower than `workspace:*`, so the rejection is intended. The OneActionDoesNotCoverResourceWildcard row already pins the behavior; the note stops the next reader of an authorize endpoint from taking it for a bug and closing the gap. Comments only. Checked that the documented invariant actually holds for all three builtin scopes and all seven composites.
TestScopesCoverAllowedNegativeDoesNotWiden drove the same scope shape as the NegativeUserPermission row of TestScopesCoverGuards, but asserted only that some error came back. The row asserts the message, the side it names, and that the comparison reports no coverage, and it runs the shape on both sides rather than one. The weaker copy could pass on a regression that returned the wrong error or stopped naming the side. Fold the scenario it documented into the row's comment and drop the copy. Rename the shared permission fixtures after the value they hold. The site prefix read as "belongs in Role.Site", while two of the three are placed in Role.User to build the shapes the guards refuse, and the No suffix gave no hint that it means Negate. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
The allowed-side wrap printed the scope name and then wrapped an error that prints it again, so the two sides of one comparison read differently: expand allowed scope "foo": no scope named "foo" expand requested scope: no scope named "foo" Drop the redundant verb and let the inner error carry the name on both sides. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
The docstring said the list includes the `all` and `application_connect` special scopes. It appends ScopeAll and ScopeApplicationConnect, which are the `coder:` spellings, so the bare aliases are absent. Two callers already compensate by appending them by hand, one of them with a comment stating the mismatch. Describe what the function returns and name the helper that bridges the gap. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
The invariant that expansion populates Site only was stated in full on ExpandScope, checkCoverable and ScopesCover, and the "everything except delete" example appeared on checkCoverable and again on permissionCovered twenty lines below. State it once on ScopesCover, which is the function whose behaviour depends on it, and cross-reference from the other two. Drop framing that ranked implementation choices nobody proposed, and cut the two test comments down to the facts the assertions do not already carry. Kept in full: what each guard in checkCoverable defends, since no other comment says it, and the wildcard rule on ScopesCover. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
checkCoverable said a negative site permission would be skipped, naming a branch permissionCovered no longer has. A negative reaching it matches on resource type and action like any other grant, so the anti-grant would read as a grant. Name that instead, so the cross-reference lands on a doc that matches the code.
The docstring listed the aliases and the low-level scopes, omitting the curated composites the function also accepts. A caller consulting it to decide whether coder:workspaces.access is public read no from the doc and yes from the code.
ExternalScopeNames promises it offers each scope under one canonical spelling, and no test held it to that. TestScopesCoverEveryExternalScope appended the two aliases, but canonicalized them back into names the list already carries, so it re-ran assertions the list iteration had made and left the promise itself unpinned. Assert on the alias table instead: the list omits the alias and offers its canonical target. Every offered name is already proven coverable, so the aliases inherit coverage, and a third alias inherits both invariants the day it is added rather than needing a third hardcoded pair here.
The authorize endpoint parsed the scope parameter and discarded it, so an app's configured allowlist never restricted anything and a client asking for more than it should get was never told no. Phase 1 added the columns that carry a negotiated scope from a code to the token it becomes, but nothing wrote one, so every code was stamped unrestricted. Negotiate the scope at authorization time and persist the result: - Requested names must be in the external scope catalog, and the app's stored allowlist is filtered through that same catalog. Filtering only ever narrows what can be granted. - The allowlist bounds authority, not spelling. A request is granted when every permission it grants is also granted by the allowlist, whether or not the allowlist names it, so an app allowed coder:workspaces.access can approve a client asking only for workspace:ssh. - Omitting scope grants the filtered allowlist, per RFC 6749 section 3.3. - Both handlers negotiate, so a request that cannot succeed fails before the consent page renders rather than after the user clicks Allow. Each reports the failure the way it already reports its own errors: a static error page on the GET side, an OAuth2 error body on the POST side. - Two paths produce an empty result and are deliberately distinct. No allowlist and no request keeps the previous unrestricted grant, written as an explicit sentinel because the column is NOT NULL with a non-empty CHECK. An allowlist that filters to nothing is rejected, since falling back would grant strictly more than the allowlist ever permitted. Dynamic client registration performs no catalog validation, so apps registered with scopes such as openid or admin hold allowlists this server cannot grant from. They now fail authorization in both directions. Grandfathering unknown names would seed the enforcement path with values it cannot evaluate, trading a visible negotiation-time error for a silent enforcement-time hole. The failure names the registered scopes and the remedy. Issued tokens are still unrestricted: the exchange copies the negotiated scope onto the token record, but the API key it mints carries no scope. This changes which authorization requests succeed, not what a token can do.
The consent page told every user the app was getting full access to their account, which stopped being true once the authorize endpoint began negotiating a narrower scope. A user approving a request has no other place to learn what they are handing over, so the page has to follow the grant rather than a fixed sentence. List the negotiated permissions when the grant is bounded, and keep the original full-access wording when it is not. An unrestricted grant is reported as full access rather than as "coder:all", since the scope name tells a user less than the sentence does. The list collapses to the full-access wording whenever the unrestricted scope is present, not only when it stands alone: an allowlist registered as `coder:all coder:workspaces.access` grants everything, and naming the narrower entry beside it would describe the grant as bounded. role="list" and role="listitem" are explicit because WebKit drops the implicit list semantics from a list styled with list-style: none, which would otherwise leave VoiceOver announcing the permissions as loose text. Also narrow the fragment the tests match for one rejection branch. The GET side renders its description into HTML, which escapes the apostrophe in "this app's allowed scope list", so the fragment stops before it.
…back A rejected authorization request answered on Coder, which reaches only the user's screen. The client's error handling never ran, and the state it sent was dropped, so it could not correlate the failure with the request that caused it. RFC 6749 section 4.1.2.1 requires the error be delivered to the client's redirect URI once the client is known. Redirect to the app's registered callback with error, error_description, and the state exactly as it arrived. Both handlers use this, replacing the static error page on the GET side and the OAuth2 error body on the POST side. This is safe here specifically because of ordering: extractAuthorizeParams exact-matches the redirect URI against the app's registered callback, and it runs before the scope check, so the destination is the app's own no matter what the request carried. Only errors raised after that point may use this helper, which its precondition states. Errors from extractAuthorizeParams itself must not, since the URI is unvalidated there. MismatchedRedirectURINotRedirected pins the ordering: an unregistered redirect_uri fails on Coder with no Location header on either verb, even when the same request also carries a scope the app cannot be granted. The other error paths in this file are unchanged, since several of them are where redirect URI validation fails.
permissionCovered could drop its action comparison and the suite stayed
green: no ScopeName expands to {*, <specific action>}, since the wildcard
entry in policy.RBACPermissions carries no actions and coder:all is the
only wildcard resource the catalog spells. Reach the shape through
scopesCoverExpanded instead, with a positive control so the case fails on
the action rather than on resource matching, and a mirror pinning that a
single-resource grant does not cover a request for every resource.
Every allowed-side error row named the bad scope as the only entry, so an
implementation that answers as soon as one entry covers the request never
reached it. Add a row where the bad name sits behind coder:all, the only
row that fails when ScopesCover expands inside the comparison loop rather
than up front.
…otiateScope The function does not check a requested scope and hand back a verdict. It decides what scope the code will carry, which for an omitted request is the app's allowlist and for an app with no allowlist is coder:all. Neither is a value the caller asked for, so the name promised the wrong thing.
… sentinels The black-box tests assert on the description that reaches the client, and they did so through hand-copied fragments of the sentinel messages. A reworded sentinel would leave every case asserting on text no branch produces, and each case would still pass through whichever branch happened to match next. The sentinels live in package oauth2provider and the tests live in oauth2provider_test, so they are bound through exported values declared in the package's internal test file, which compiles into the same binary.
…turning it rbac.ScopesCover reports an error when it cannot expand one of the names it was handed. That is a deployment-side condition: the app's stored allowlist holds something RBAC will not resolve, and no client can fix it by asking differently. Folding it into errScopeNotAllowed both told the client it had asked for too much, which is not what happened, and rendered RBAC internals into error_description. The failure now goes to the log with the app that provoked it, and the client receives a sentinel of its own. negotiateScope takes the whole app rather than its scope alone so the log line can name it.
… is grantable The rejection named the filter's input, rejoined from fields. For a whitespace-only allowlist that input is empty, so the app owner was shown "" as the value they had to change: the one configuration where the message is the only clue anything is set at all. It now names the stored value verbatim.
…asons Two reasons said things the code does not do. "scope is not in this app's allowed scope list" described membership, but the check is permission coverage: a scope the allowlist never names is granted when a listed composite already confers it. A client reading the old text would go looking for its scope in a list it was never matched against. "re-register the app with supported scopes" prescribed the one remedy a DCR client has. An admin-created app is edited, not re-registered, and a DCR client can update itself in place through RFC 7592. The new text carries an apostrophe on the path the GET handler renders through an HTML template, so the helper that reads those responses now unescapes before matching.
The swagger annotation said a requested scope must be within the app's configured allowlist, which is wrong twice over. The allowlist is checked by permission coverage, not name membership, and it is not the only gate: every requested name must also be in this deployment's scope catalog, including for an app that has no allowlist at all. The omitted-scope default was likewise stated only for apps that have one. Two code comments went stale the same way. The branch table called the omitted-scope default the whole allowlist when it is the catalog-filtered one, and the comment over the persisted scope said the token minted from the code will carry it, which is the next phase's work, not this one's.
…h-scope Picks up the resolved main merge from #28744, which brings in the squashed parent work (#28740) plus the single-use code redemption changes. Merged without conflicts. The overlapping regions combined as intended: checkScopeStillCovered keeps the parent's log-and-refuse for an ungrantable allowlist while taking this branch's firstScopeBeyondCeiling rename, and grantableScopes keeps the parent's bounded allocation.
|
/coder-agents-review |
BobbyHo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review: refresh may narrow the granted scope
Read against the stack (#28744 is the base). The coverage-over-membership call in the TL;DR is the right one and the reasoning for it holds: coder:all is the grant every allowlist-less app holds, and membership would make it unnarrowable.
Verdict: one ordering issue I would fix before merge, plus nits.
Verified locally
TestNarrowGrantedScope,TestCheckScopeStillCoveredand all thirteenTestOAuth2TokenExchangeScopesubtests pass against Postgres on85030f8.narrowGrantedScoperuns after the refresh token's hash, app binding and expiry checks and beforeGetAPIKeyByID, so a rejection issues nothing and the old refresh token stays redeemable.RefreshCannotWidenTheScopepins that.- Nothing widens:
firstScopeBeyondCeilingis the samerbac.FirstScopeNotCoveredcomparison the authorize side uses, with the grant as the ceiling. The rotated refresh token persists the narrowed column, so the next refresh cannot climb back. canonicalScopesdedups viaslice.Unique, so theDuplicateRequestedScopesDeduplicatedandLegacyAliasCanonicalizedcases are real behavior, not test artifacts.- Error dispatch:
errUnknownScopeanderrScopeNotGrantedare only produced on the refresh path inTokens, so mapping them toinvalid_scopecannot misclassify a code-grant failure. - Docs: the deleted Limitations bullet was false after this change, and the new
invalid_scopeparagraph quotes both rejection strings verbatim.
Should fix
A stored grant outside the catalog answers 500 on a narrowing refresh but 400 invalid_grant on a plain one (inline on tokens.go). The redeem path orders scopeStringToAPIKeyScopes before the coverage check for exactly this reason (its comment: RBAC cannot expand a name that is not a real scope, so the coverage check would answer "could not be determined"). The refresh path runs narrowGrantedScope first and converts only the narrowed result, so the same broken row yields errCoverageUndecidable and a server_error whenever the client happens to pass scope. TestNarrowGrantedScope/GrantOutsideTheCatalogUndecidable currently pins that outcome.
Nits
errUnknownScopeis wrapped with%qinnegotiateScopeand'%s'innarrowGrantedScope, so the same error renders"x"on authorize and'x'on refresh. The docs quote neither form, so either is fine, but one spelling is easier to grep for.- PR body: "Diff is against #28744, not main" will go stale the same way #28744's did once its base merges.
This review was generated by Coder Agents on behalf of @BobbyHo.
BobbyHo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Twenty-one reviewers on a 298-line diff. The scope logic is the strong part, and it held up under everything the panel threw at it. narrowGrantedScope reuses firstScopeBeyondCeiling instead of standing up a third comparison, the ceiling rename is the generalization that made that reuse possible, and coverage over membership is right for the reason the description gives: coder:all is a member of no set but its own, so membership would have left narrowing unreachable for every app without an allowlist. Five reviewers independently enumerated the catalog to check it, and all 57 external names expand under RBAC, are valid api_key_scope members, and are covered by a coder:all ceiling. The narrowing also sits in the right place in the handler, after every authentication step and before the first write, so "a refused refresh mints nothing" is a property of the control flow rather than a promise. TestNarrowGrantedScope covers the new function at 100% of statements, and Bisky's mutation testing found the assertions load-bearing rather than decorative.
1 P1, 5 P2, 18 P3, 1 P4, 5 Nits, 7 Notes. This is posted as a comment rather than as a request for changes only because GitHub refuses REQUEST_CHANGES on a pull request the reviewing account owns; treat the P1 as blocking.
The P1 is not in the scope logic. It is in the transaction underneath it. Hisoka, Komugi and Mafuuu each independently reproduced two concurrent refreshes of the same refresh token both succeeding against real Postgres, leaving the broad grant alive beside the narrowed one with its own still-redeemable refresh lineage. Komugi measured the rate: 12 of 20 runs at GOMAXPROCS=4, 1 of 20 at GOMAXPROCS=1, sequential control clean. Hisoka put the diff-relevance best:
This crosses the diff. Before this PR both branches wrote
Scope: dbToken.Scope, so a doubled refresh produced two tokens of identical scope: duplicated authority the client already had, ugly but inert. This PR makes the two branches able to disagree, and the moment they can disagree the duplicate can be strictly broader than what the client asked to be left with. The dormant bug woke up when you gave it two scopes to choose between.
Kurapika reproduced the opposite outcome from the same race: no double mint, but a 500 leaking execute transaction: delete oauth2 app token: fetch object: sql: no rows in result set in a body that is not an RFC 6749 error response. Both outcomes are real, and the mechanism explains the split. dbauthz.DeleteAPIKeyByID is deleteQ to fetchAndExec to fetchAndQuery, which runs GetAPIKeyByID and wraps its failure as fetch object: %w before authorizing, then runs the :exec DELETE. When the loser's fetch precedes the winner's commit the row is still visible, the DELETE affects zero rows, :exec returns nil, and a second lineage mints. When the fetch follows, it returns sql.ErrNoRows. So the race has two failure modes, and the fetch-then-authorize is what produces the second one rather than what prevents the first.
Two items need a human decision rather than a code change.
CRF-10 is a schema question, and the panel split on the fix rather than on the finding. Four reviewers reached the same P2 independently: oauth2_provider_app_tokens.scope now carries both the token's current authority and the ceiling for every future refresh, so the consented scope is unrecoverable after the first narrowing, and the ratchet cannot be revisited later without guessing at data that no longer exists. Pariston's fix is to delete Scope: grantedScope from the token insert, making the narrowing per-request and satisfying RFC 6749 section 6 on both halves. Meruem's and Ryosuke's is a second column recording the consented scope, keeping the ratchet. Those are opposite designs from the same evidence, and picking between them is not something the panel can do for you. Ryosuke on why it does not keep: "The comparator, the error mapping, the tests: all of that is adjustable next week. The schema is the racing line you commit to before the corner, and you only get to pick it once."
The section 6 citation is the second. Four reviewers noted that section 6 anchors both the ceiling and the omitted-scope default to the scope originally granted by the resource owner, while the code anchors both to the last issued token's scope. The ratchet has a real security argument in its favour that the PR never makes, that a refresh token stolen after a narrowing cannot climb back to full authority. But as written the description cites the rule the code does not implement, and that is how the error message in CRF-9 came to tell clients a scope was never granted when the user did grant it. Either fix the citation or state the divergence deliberately.
Process notes. The PR description is unusually good, and several reviewers said so unprompted; Leorio called it "the reason this review was cheap" and credited it with heading off findings about decisions already made on purpose. Two things in it are stale: it names firstScopeNotCovered where the code says firstScopeBeyondCeiling (CRF-6), and it claims a token-endpoint invalid_scope docs section that does not exist (CRF-11). The documentation findings cluster for one structural reason rather than eight independent ones: the new prose landed in a troubleshooting section indexed by error code, under the wrong code. Seven of the 23 P2s and P3s are documentation.
Both open threads are answered as replies rather than as new findings. The ordering thread is correct about the split it describes, and its live half is CRF-5; eight reviewers independently confirmed the narrowing path itself cannot fail at line 667. The quoting thread turns out to be cosmetic for clients, because sanitizeErrorDescription rewrites the double quote to a single one and the two spellings converge on the wire, but the line it points at has a real defect underneath it, which is CRF-8.
docs/admin/integrations/oauth2-provider.md:477
P2 [CRF-12] "A refresh token keeps its granted scope until it expires" is now false, and it sits nine lines above the paragraph that contradicts it. (Leorio P2)
Read 474 through 478 as the reader gets it:
A refresh is not re-checked against the registration. [...] A refresh token keeps its granted scope until it expires, which can be up to the configured refresh lifetime; revoke the token to cut a live session.
That is the one paragraph on this page about what can and cannot change a live refresh token's scope, so it is where somebody goes with exactly the question this PR changes the answer to. The scope can now change: the client can shrink it, refreshTokenGrant persists the shrunk value at tokens.go:717, and the next refresh inherits it.
I verified the sentence is still present at head and still absolute. Leorio's recipient is the specific one: "an operator at 2 AM watching an integration lose access it had yesterday. They read line 477, learn the scope cannot have changed, and go spend the next hour in the RBAC role assignments instead of asking whether the client sent a scope parameter."
The paragraph is about the registration re-check, but the sentence is not scoped that way. One clause fixes it:
A refresh token keeps its granted scope until it expires, unless the client itself narrows it on a refresh, which can be up to the configured refresh lifetime; revoke the token to cut a live session.
This is a class rather than an instance. The PR searched the Limitations list for statements it falsified and correctly deleted the bullet at line 589. Grep the page for every sentence asserting the refresh scope is fixed: line 284 was caught, 477 was not.
🤖
docs/admin/integrations/oauth2-provider.md:299
P3 [CRF-19] The ### Refresh Tokens section never mentions the scope parameter, so the capability is discoverable only from a troubleshooting section. (Pen-botter P3, Leorio P3)
## Token Management then ### Refresh Tokens is where a developer goes to learn how to refresh. It runs 299 to 336 and gives three complete curl recipes, one per client auth method (lines 306, 317, 329). None mentions scope, and no prose around them says it is accepted.
The only places the narrowing appears are one subordinate clause in ## Scopes at line 284, "unless the refresh request names a narrower one", with no parameter name in sight, and the paragraph at 486 under a troubleshooting heading about an error code.
Both reviewers land on the same consequence, and Leorio states why it defeats the point: "This feature exists so clients can drop authority they no longer need. A client that does not know it exists does not drop anything, and every long-lived integration keeps the broad token it was first handed." Troubleshooting is where you go when something already broke; a developer who wants to request least privilege on refresh has no reason to be there.
Fix is small. One sentence in ### Refresh Tokens after the three examples, plus a -d "scope=..." line in one of them, with a pointer to the detail paragraph:
A refresh may include a `scope` parameter to give up authority it no longer needs.
The value must be within the scope the token currently holds; a refresh can narrow
but never widen. Omitting it keeps the current scope.The recipes are the artifact developers copy; they should cover what the endpoint now accepts.
🤖
codersdk/oauth2.go:429
Nit [CRF-32] OAuth2TokenRequest.Scope changed meaning for the refresh grant, and no field on the struct carries a doc comment recording what it means per grant type. (Leorio P3, orchestrator corrected and downgraded to Nit)
Before this PR, a Go client that set Scope on a refresh had it silently discarded. After it, the same code narrows the token and the caller's next API call starts failing with permission errors. That is a real behavior change reachable from an exported struct field whose meaning is genuinely different across grant types, which is exactly the non-obvious thing a field doc exists to carry. AGENTS.md asks for idiomatic doc comments on exported symbols.
// Scope is space-delimited. On an authorization code exchange it is ignored;
// the code carries the negotiated scope. On a refresh it may name a scope
// within the one the token currently holds, narrowing the new token. Empty
// keeps the current scope.
Scope string `json:"scope,omitempty"`Two corrections to the finding as filed, which is why it is a Nit rather than a P3. The struct does have a doc comment ("OAuth2TokenRequest represents a token request per RFC 6749. The actual wire format is application/x-www-form-urlencoded; this struct is for SDK docs"), so the premise that it has none is wrong; the field-level gap is real. And this file is not in the diff, so it is a request to document a field whose behavior the PR changed rather than one it wrote. Ryosuke separately grepped cli/, codersdk/ and site/src/ and found no first-party caller that sets Scope on a refresh, which bounds the blast radius to third-party SDK users.
🤖
🤖 This review was automatically generated with Coder Agents.
…used redemption requireOneTokenForApp could not fail. The grant deletes any key holding the name it is about to write and oauth2_provider_app_tokens cascades on that delete, so the rows converge on one key and one token however many redemptions succeed. Reverting single use and probing showed minted=2 with the helper still passing. Replace it with requireTokenAuthenticates: keep the access token the accepted redemption returned and call the API with it afterward. A second redemption would have rotated that key out, which a row count cannot see. Both tests now grant coder:all so the probed endpoint is in scope.
DeleteOAuth2ProviderAppCodeByID and its ReturningRow twin differed only by RETURNING *, and the pair propagated through seven layers: two SQL queries, two querier entries, two dbauthz wrappers, two dbmetrics wrappers, two dbmock methods and two MethodTestSuite subtests. The :exec variant's one caller, revokeOAuth2CodeOnPKCEFailure, already treats sql.ErrNoRows as success, and both dbauthz wrappers fetched the code and authorized ActionDelete, so the swap preserves behavior. Removing the variant also frees the plain name: no other Delete... :one query in the repo carries a suffix naming its RETURNING clause. scripts/dbgen reuses existing method bodies and does not drop removed methods, so the dbmetrics wrapper needed the orphan deleted and the survivor's body widened by hand.
…reak The comment at the delete explained the race mechanics, which db.InTx already implies. Replace it with the reason the row is deleted at all: RFC 6749 §10.5 single use, spent inside the transaction so a later failure leaves the code redeemable. The premise worth recording is that arbitration depends on READ COMMITTED. That belongs on the query, next to the ErrNoRows contract it qualifies, where sqlc carries it into the generated Go for callers.
The client-side barrier only aligned the request sends. Nothing stopped one handler from committing before the other read the code, in which case the pre-transaction read refuses the second redemption and the delete never arbitrates. The test then passes against an implementation that does not enforce single use. barrierStore holds both redemptions at that read until each has taken it. Against the parent implementation the test now fails 10/10 on minted=2.
…rror descriptions A refresh that names an unknown scope has that name quoted back in error_description, and the name comes straight from the request form. RFC 6749 section 5.2 restricts the parameter to %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E, and the rule is on the decoded value, so JSON escaping does not satisfy it. Nothing capped the length either. The authorize path had already solved both halves, in sanitizeErrorDescription and in redirectAuthorizeError's cap, and the token endpoint inherited neither. Apply them at the write rather than at each call site, so the guarantee belongs to the endpoint instead of to whoever writes the next message. The code_verifier message spells "section" out, since the sanitizer drops the sign it used to carry.
A refresh that named a scope wrote the narrowed value into oauth2_provider_app_tokens.scope, which is also the ceiling the next refresh reads. One narrowing therefore lowered the ceiling permanently, and a client that gave up authority for one call could not ask for a sibling permission of the same grant afterwards, nor take the grant back, without a human at the consent page. The refresh row now keeps the consented grant and only the minted API key narrows. OAuth 2.1 section 4.3.3 requires a rotated refresh token to carry the scope of the one presented, and section 4.3 gives "previously obtained an access token with a scope more narrow than approved by the respective grant and later requires an access token with a different scope under the same grant" as a reason to refresh at all. RFC 6749 section 6 bounds the request by what the resource owner granted, which is the value this column now holds for the life of the grant. That column was also the only surviving record of the consent: the code row carrying it is deleted at redemption, the API key holds current scopes only, and oauth2_provider_app_tokens is not audited. Overwriting it left the deployment unable to answer what the user had approved. narrowGrantedScope becomes narrowAccessScope, and grantedScope becomes accessScope in refreshTokenGrant, since neither is the grant any more.
errScopeNotGranted stated the ceiling but not the remedy, unlike errStaleScope one line up. No refresh can widen a grant no matter what the client sends, so a client reading only the ceiling has nothing to distinguish "ask differently" from "cannot be asked for at all", and retries scope combinations that cannot succeed. The message now ends with the only step that works. The wording "originally granted" is left as it is. It became true again when the refresh row stopped carrying the narrowed scope, and it matches the phrase RFC 6749 section 6 and OAuth 2.1 section 4.3.1 both use for the same ceiling. narrowAccessScope's doc comment loses a paragraph that argued for a decision the function does not make: the refresh row keeps the grant at the insert, and that call site already carries the reasoning.
6cb2588 to
8f87b2d
Compare
…cessScope The omitted-scope exit returned the stored grant untouched while every other path ran it through canonicalScopes first, so the shape of the result depended on whether the client sent a scope. A row holding a pre-canonical alias would refresh only if the client narrowed it: "all" is not an api_key_scope member, so minting from it fails, while "coder:all" is. No released path writes such a row. The migration backfill writes coder:all, v2.37.0 hardcodes coder:all on the code, and negotiateScope canonicalizes before storing. The divergence is what is fixed here, not a reachable failure.
CRF-3: firstScopeBeyondCeiling's two conversion loops are slice.StringEnums, already used six times in registration.go. The local allowedNames becomes ceilingNames, which is what the parameter has been since the rename. CRF-5: a stored grant outside the catalog answered 500 when the client named a scope and 400 when it did not, because RBAC cannot expand such a name and the coverage check reached it first. narrowAccessScope now validates the ceiling before comparing, as authorizationCodeGrant validates the code's scope before its own, so both exits answer 400 naming the scope at fault. CRF-29: phase gains phaseAuthorize, phaseRedeem and phaseRefresh. It is a log field operators filter on, and a typo in a literal compiles. The doc paragraph listed two of the three values and now names none, since the constants are the list. CRF-30: the duplicated const block in tokens_internal_test.go is hoisted to the file. CRF-31: "these two" counts the conditions under it and goes stale; the sibling comment says "these". CRF-35: the errCoverageUndecidable wrap now says the description carries stored grant values, since only the handlers keep it from being rendered. CRF-36: the invalid_grant comment claimed all three sentinels report stored values. errUnmintableScope can report a client-named scope, and is unreachable that way only because the catalog check runs first. CRF-37: LegacyAliasRefreshesTheSameEitherWay seeds two apps rather than two grants on one, since nothing enforces one holder of a refreshed key's name. Also one spelling for errUnknownScope's two call sites: negotiateScope used %q, which emits the double quote RFC 6749 section 5.2 excludes and leaves the sanitizer to rewrite what it just wrote.
…t returns CRF-11: the refresh-narrowing prose sat under the invalid_grant heading and named no error code, so a client reading invalid_scope from the token endpoint searched the page, found the authorize-side section that opens "it redirects to your registered callback", and left. It now has its own heading opening with the code and status, matching its two neighbours, and the authorize-side section points here. CRF-17: "anything the original grant confers" is false for six of the composite scopes. organization_member:read, provisioner_jobs:read and template:view_insights all expand under RBAC and none is requestable, so a client narrowing coder:workspaces.create to the fullest set it can name loses the org member read a workspace build needs. Says so, and says to refresh without a scope to get the composite back. CRF-18: "a scope this deployment does not define" is the wrong cause for an internal-only name like debug_info:read, which this deployment does define and will never offer. Fixed in the new prose and in the authorize-side bullet that predates this PR. CRF-28: the Limitations list records that a scope on a refresh used to be discarded and is now enforced, since deleting a bullet was the only trace that a shipped endpoint tightened. CRF-33: an application_connect row beside the all row, since the catalog check runs before canonicalization and scopeAliases holds exactly those two.
CRF-21: RefreshCannotWidenTheScope claimed the refused refresh left the token redeemable and proved it by reading a database row. It now redeems it. The row read would still pass if a rejection rotated the refresh hash or moved ExpiresAt, neither of which the old assertion could see. CRF-22: RefreshUnknownScopeRejected asserted the reason but never the name, so deleting the wrap that carries it passed. The catalog check runs before the coverage check precisely to hand a client that typo'd a scope the name to fix, and nothing tested that. CRF-2 and CRF-23: the refresh half of ResponseStatesTheScopeGranted sent workspace:ssh and asserted workspace:ssh, which is the one case RFC 6749 section 5.1 does not require the parameter for, so it restated its siblings instead of testing its own comment. It now grants coder:all and refreshes with the alias all, where the granted spelling differs from the requested one. Returning the requested spelling instead of the canonical one now fails an end-to-end test rather than only two unit rows. CRF-24: requireTokenGrantError and requireTokenScopeError were the same twelve lines with one constant changed. One requireTokenError over codersdk.OAuth2Error, which is the type the server marshals, with both names kept as wrappers. The sanitizer subtest declared the same struct a third time and now uses it too.
…pe refusals CRF-15: the code grant parsed scope and discarded it, which is the defect this PR fixes on the refresh branch. A client asking for less was handed the broader token it tried to give up. It now narrows the same way, against the code's scope. RFC 6749 section 4.1.3 defines no scope parameter there, so ignoring it was defensible; accepting and discarding it is not. CRF-13: a scope refusal on this path logged nothing, while every sibling refusal in the package logs at Warn. A leaked token being probed for what it can be traded up to looked the same as an ordinary client error. Both refusals now log with the phase the PR already threads through for that purpose. CRF-16: narrowAccessScope took the whole app but must never read app.Scope. It takes appID, so the rule that a narrowed registration applies at the next authorization is enforced by the signature rather than by a comment on another function. CRF-25: the catalog loop was a second copy of negotiateScope's, and the copy is where the quoting diverged. One firstUnknownScope, called from both. CRF-26 and CRF-27: the canonicalization comment stated its reason instead of pointing at another function's, and the doc comment now carries why coverage rather than membership, which was only in a test case. Also the unlabelled ordering comment, already fixed in f54bbbc. Comments throughout are cut back: RFC sections are cited rather than explained, and test headers say what is verified rather than why the rule exists. One of them had been orphaned onto the wrong function by an earlier commit and is back above TestOAuth2TokenExchangeSingleUse.
Drop the notes that restate what the code already shows, and shorten the narrowAccessScope and invalid_grant comments to the reasoning a reader cannot get from the code.
…esh-scope # Conflicts: # coderd/oauth2provider/tokens_test.go # docs/admin/integrations/oauth2-provider.md
dylanhuff-at-coder
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm, thanks for working through the feedback
TL;DR
First of three in PLAT-481, the last phase of PLAT-470.
POST /oauth2/tokensparsed a refresh request'sscopeand discarded it, so a client asking for less was handed the broader token it tried to give up. A refresh may now narrow the access token it mints. It still cannot widen.coder:all.scope. The access token it mints carries that scope; the grant does not move.main.coder:all, which covers every scope but is a member of no set but its own, so membership would have left those clients unable to ask for less. Coverage also reuses the authorize-side comparison rather than adding a third.Contract change
A refresh that names a
scopenow gets an access token carrying exactly that scope, or400witherror=invalid_scopein the body. Two descriptions, each opening with the offending name: one for a name the grant does not cover, one for a name outside the catalog. A refused refresh mints nothing and does not consume the refresh token, so the client retries with less rather than re-authorizing.The narrowing applies to the access token that refresh mints, and to nothing else.
oauth2_provider_app_tokens.scopekeeps the consented grant for the life of the token, so a client may narrow for one call, ask for a different part of the same grant on the next, or omitscopeto take it whole again. An earlier revision persisted the narrowed value, which made every narrowing permanent. That broke OAuth 2.1 §4.3.3, which requires a rotated refresh token to keep the scope of the one presented, defeated §4.3's own reason for a scoped refresh, and overwrote the only surviving record of what the user consented to.Only the resource owner lowers the ceiling, by revoking or authorizing again with less. A stolen refresh token can therefore mint at the full consented scope, as it can today. OAuth 2.1 §4.3.1 answers theft with rotation and replay detection, which is its own ticket.
Also in this PR
error_descriptionon the token endpoint is sanitized and capped. An unknown scope is the one client-written value this endpoint echoes, and nothing confined it to RFC 6749 §5.2's character set or bounded its length. Both now happen inwriteTokenError, so the guarantee belongs to the endpoint rather than to each call site. The cap is the one the authorize path already used, lifted out so both paths share one bound.unknown or unsupported scopeinstead of reachingrbac.ExpandScopeand failing as undecidable.allowlistfield on scope-coverage warnings is nowceiling, for the authorize and redeem phases as well as refresh, since on refresh the bound is the token's own grant. A saved query filtering onallowlistgoes quiet rather than erroring.phasegains a third value,refresh.What it satisfies
scopereturns the grant whole.error_descriptionis confined to the permitted set, on the decoded value.Docs.
docs/admin/integrations/oauth2-provider.mddrops the Limitations bullet saying a client cannot narrow on refresh, adds a token-endpointinvalid_scopesection covering which token narrows, both rejection wordings, and the composite-scope caveat, and moves the OAuth 2.1 draft link from -12 to -16.PLAT-481, first of three. Stack: #28237, #28740, #28744, this PR.