## Summary
Custom roles that can create workspaces on behalf of other users need to
be able to list users to populate the owner dropdown in the workspace
creation UI. Previously, this required a separate `user:read`
permission, causing the dropdown to fail for custom roles.
## Changes
- Modified `GetUsers` in `dbauthz` to check if the user can create
workspaces for any owner (`workspace:create` with `owner_id: *`)
- If the user has this permission, they can list all users without
needing explicit `user:read` permission
- Added tests to verify the new behavior
## Testing
- Updated mock tests to assert the new authorization check
- Added integration tests for both positive and negative cases
Fixes#18203
feat: add boundary usage telemetry database schema and RBAC
Adds the foundation for tracking boundary usage telemetry across Coder
replicas. This includes:
- Database schema: `boundary_usage_stats` table with per-replica stats
(unique workspaces, unique users, allowed/denied request counts)
- Database queries: upsert stats, get aggregated summary, reset stats,
delete by replica ID
- RBAC: `boundary_usage` resource type with read/update/delete actions,
accessible only via system `BoundaryUsageTracker` subject (not regular
user roles)
- Tracker skeleton + docs: stub implementation in `coderd/boundaryusage/`
The tracker accumulates stats in memory and periodically flushes to the
database. Stats are aggregated across replicas for telemetry reporting,
then reset when a new reporting period begins. The tracker implementation
and plumbing will be done in a subsequent commit/PR.
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The removal of that permission from the role broke valid use cases (e.g.
a site owner user creating a workspace owned by a system account and
then trying to share it with another user).
The bulk of the PR is made up of the rollbacks of the previously
introduced test updates necessitated by the removal.
Related to: https://github.com/coder/internal/issues/1285
Fixes all our Go file imports to match the preferred spec that we've _mostly_ been using. For example:
```
import (
"context"
"time"
"github.com/prometheus/client_golang/prometheus"
"golang.org/x/xerrors"
"gopkg.in/natefinch/lumberjack.v2"
"cdr.dev/slog/v3"
"github.com/coder/coder/v2/codersdk/agentsdk"
"github.com/coder/serpent"
)
```
3 groups: standard library, 3rd partly libs, Coder libs.
This PR makes the change across the codebase. The PR in the stack above modifies our formatting to maintain this state of affairs, and is a separate PR so it's possible to review that one in detail.
Not used in coderd yet, see stack.
Adds two new packages:
- `coderd/usage`: provides an interface for the "Collector" as well as a stub implementation for AGPL
- `enterprise/coderd/usage`: provides an interface for the "Publisher" as well as a Tallyman implementation
Relates to https://github.com/coder/internal/issues/814
Closes https://github.com/coder/internal/issues/780
## Summary of changes:
- added `user_secrets` table
- `user_secrets` table contains `env_name` and `file_path` fields which
are not used at the moment, but will be used in later PRs
- `user_secrets` table doesn't contain `value_key_id`, I will add it in
a separate migration in a dbcrypt PR
- on one hand I don't want to add fields which are not used (because
it's a risk smth may change in implementation later), on the other hand
I don't want to add too many migrations for user secrets table
- added unique sql indexes
- added sql queries for CRUD operations on user-secrets
- introduced new `ResourceUserSecret` resource
- basic unit-tests for CRUD ops and authorization behavior
- Role updates:
- owner:
- remove `ResourceUserSecret` from site-wide perms
- add `ResourceUserSecret` to user-wide perms
- orgAdmin
- remove `ResourceUserSecret` from org-wide perms; seems it's not
strictly required, because `ResourceUserSecret` is not tied to
organization in dbauthz wrappers?
- memberRole
- no need to change memberRole because it implicitly has access to
user-secrets thanks to the `allPermsExcept`
- is it enough changes to roles?
Main questions:
- [ ] We will have 2 migrations for user-secrets:
- initial migration (in current PR)
- adding `value_key_id` in dbcrypt PR
- is this approach reasonable?
- [ ] Are changes to roles's permissions are correct?
- [ ] Are changes in roles_test.go are correct?
---------
Co-authored-by: Steven Masley <Emyrk@users.noreply.github.com>
### Breaking Change (changelog note):
> User connections to workspaces, and the opening of workspace apps or ports will no longer create entries in the audit log. Those events will now be included in the 'Connection Log'.
Please see the 'Connection Log' page in the dashboard, and the Connection Log [documentation](https://coder.com/docs/admin/monitoring/connection-logs) for details. Those with permission to view the Audit Log will also be able to view the Connection Log. The new Connection Log has the same licensing restrictions as the Audit Log, and requires a Premium Coder deployment.
### Context
This is the first PR of a few for moving connection events out of the audit log, and into a new database table and web UI page called the 'Connection Log'.
This PR:
- Creates the new table
- Adds and tests queries for inserting and reading, including reading with an RBAC filter.
- Implements the corresponding RBAC changes, such that anyone who can view the audit log can read from the table
- Implements, under the enterprise package, a `ConnectionLogger` abstraction to replace the `Auditor` abstraction for these logs. (No-op'd in AGPL, like the `Auditor`)
- Routes SSH connection and Workspace App events into the new `ConnectionLogger`
- Updates all existing tests to check the values of the `ConnectionLogger` instead of the `Auditor`.
Future PRs:
- Add filtering to the query
- Add an enterprise endpoint to query the new table
- Write a query to delete old events from the audit log, call it from dbpurge.
- Implement a table in the Web UI for viewing connection logs.
> [!NOTE]
> The PRs in this stack obviously won't be (completely) atomic. Whilst they'll each pass CI, the stack is designed to be merged all at once. I'm splitting them up for the sake of those reviewing, and so changes can be reviewed as early as possible. Despite this, it's really hard to make this PR any smaller than it already is. I'll be keeping it in draft until it's actually ready to merge.
## Description
This PR adds support for deleting prebuilt workspaces via the
authorization layer. It introduces special-case handling to ensure that
`prebuilt_workspace` permissions are evaluated when attempting to delete
a prebuilt workspace, falling back to the standard `workspace` resource
as needed.
Prebuilt workspaces are a subset of workspaces, identified by having
`owner_id` set to `PREBUILD_SYSTEM_USER`.
This means:
* A user with `prebuilt_workspace.delete` permission is allowed to
**delete only prebuilt workspaces**.
* A user with `workspace.delete` permission can **delete both normal and
prebuilt workspaces**.
⚠️ This implementation is scoped to **deletion operations only**. No
other operations are currently supported for the `prebuilt_workspace`
resource.
To delete a workspace, users must have the following permissions:
* `workspace.read`: to read the current workspace state
* `update`: to modify workspace metadata and related resources during
deletion (e.g., updating the `deleted` field in the database)
* `delete`: to perform the actual deletion of the workspace
## Changes
* Introduced `authorizeWorkspace()` helper to handle prebuilt workspace
authorization logic.
* Ensured both `prebuilt_workspace` and `workspace` permissions are
checked.
* Added comments to clarify the current behavior and limitations.
* Moved `SystemUserID` constant from the `prebuilds` package to the
`database` package `PrebuildsSystemUserID` to resolve an import cycle
(commit
https://github.com/coder/coder/pull/18333/commits/f24e4ab4b6f0a56726fd04be2d7302c9fdb52d53).
* Update middleware `ExtractOrganizationMember` to include system user
members.
* Adds `codersdk.ExperimentWebPush` (`web-push`)
* Adds a `coderd/webpush` package that allows sending native push
notifications via `github.com/SherClockHolmes/webpush-go`
* Adds database tables to store push notification subscriptions.
* Adds an API endpoint that allows users to subscribe/unsubscribe, and
send a test notification (404 without experiment, excluded from API docs)
* Adds server CLI command to regenerate VAPID keys (note: regenerating
the VAPID keypair requires deleting all existing subscriptions)
---------
Co-authored-by: Kyle Carberry <kyle@carberry.com>
This change allows specifying devcontainers in terraform and plumbs it
through to the agent via agent manifest.
This will be used for autostarting devcontainers in a workspace.
Depends on coder/terraform-provider-coder#368
Updates #16423
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](https://github.com/coder/coder/blob/36d9f5ddb3d98029fee07d004709e1e51022e979/coderd/rbac/policy.rego#L172-L192)
is used. So the truth table looks like: _how to read this table
[here](https://github.com/coder/coder/blob/36d9f5ddb3d98029fee07d004709e1e51022e979/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`.
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
* - 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: 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.
Garrett Delfosse