fix(dashmate): port marks as closed if ipv6 is not disabled #2162
Conversation
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
@shumkov can you address the security issues found? |
WalkthroughThe changes involve replacing the Changes
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js (1)
98-112: Potential for multiple promise resolutionsThere are multiple paths that can resolve the promise (e.g., data size exceeding the maximum, timeouts, errors). Since a JavaScript promise ignores subsequent calls to
resolveorrejectafter the first one, ensure that no code relies on multiple resolutions, and consider adding safeguards if necessary.While this is generally acceptable in JavaScript, adding comments to clarify that only the first resolution takes effect can improve code readability.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js (2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js (3)
67-71: Well-documented reason for using IPv4The comments clearly explain the rationale behind switching to
https.requestand forcing IPv4 usage to avoid connection issues with IPv6 addresses. This improves code maintainability by providing context for future developers.
77-77: Correctly forcing IPv4 with the 'family' optionSetting
family: 4in the request options correctly ensures that the DNS lookup will return IPv4 addresses, which aligns with the need specified in the comments.
72-78: Security consideration: Ensure TLS certificate validation is activeWhen using
https.request, TLS certificate validation is enabled by default. It's important to confirm that no options inadvertently disable this feature, which could expose the application to man-in-the-middle attacks.Run the following script to verify that certificate validation is not disabled elsewhere in the codebase:
| res.setTimeout(MAX_REQUEST_TIMEOUT, () => { | ||
| if (process.env.DEBUG) { | ||
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-console | ||
| console.warn(`Port check ${MAX_REQUEST_TIMEOUT} timeout reached`); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| resolve(PortStateEnum.ERROR); | ||
|
|
||
| req.destroy(); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Redundant timeout settings on both request and response
Timeouts are set on both the response (res.setTimeout) and the request (req.setTimeout) with the same MAX_REQUEST_TIMEOUT value. This redundancy may not be necessary and could lead to unexpected behavior or complexity.
Consider removing one of the timeout settings to simplify the code. Typically, setting the timeout on the request (req.setTimeout) is sufficient to handle slow responses and overall request duration.
Also applies to: 129-138
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Request and Response timeouts aren't the same thing. Setting both timeouts is correct approach. In this case better to use options.timeout that set socket timeout for both request and response.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shumkov, thank you for the clarification. You're correct that request and response timeouts aren't the same, and setting both is the correct approach. Using options.timeout to set the socket timeout for both is a better solution.
(\ (
( ••)
o(")(")
✏️ Learnings added
Learnt from: shumkov
PR: dashpay/platform#2162
File: packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js:87-96
Timestamp: 2024-09-26T14:58:26.258Z
Learning: In the `checkPortStatus` function, it's better to use `options.timeout` to set the socket timeout for both request and response.
Note: Learnings are effective only in the context of similar code segments. To apply general coding guidelines, please configure review instructions. You can manage existing learnings in the app.
🧠 Learnings used
Learnt from: shumkov
PR: dashpay/platform#2162
File: packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js:121-127
Timestamp: 2024-09-26T14:28:54.892Z
Learning: In the `mnowatch.checkPortStatus` function, failures should resolve with `PortStateEnum.ERROR` instead of rejecting the promise.
| if (process.env.DEBUG) { | ||
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-console | ||
| console.warn(e); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| resolve(PortStateEnum.ERROR); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Error handling may obscure specific errors
In the req.on('error', (e) => { ... }) handler, the promise resolves with PortStateEnum.ERROR, which could obscure the specific error encountered during the request.
Consider rejecting the promise with the error to allow for more granular error handling upstream or include the error details in the resolution. Here's an example:
req.on('error', (e) => {
if (process.env.DEBUG) {
// eslint-disable-next-line no-console
console.warn(e);
}
- resolve(PortStateEnum.ERROR);
+ reject(e);
});Alternatively, if resolving with PortStateEnum.ERROR is necessary, ensure that the error details are logged or otherwise accessible for debugging purposes.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| if (process.env.DEBUG) { | |
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-console | |
| console.warn(e); | |
| } | |
| resolve(PortStateEnum.ERROR); | |
| }); | |
| if (process.env.DEBUG) { | |
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-console | |
| console.warn(e); | |
| } | |
| reject(e); | |
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In case of failure we return error status.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shumkov, understood. Thank you for the clarification.
(_/)
( ..)
(")(")
✏️ Learnings added
Learnt from: shumkov
PR: dashpay/platform#2162
File: packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js:121-127
Timestamp: 2024-09-26T14:28:54.731Z
Learning: In the `mnowatch.checkPortStatus` function, failures should resolve with `PortStateEnum.ERROR` instead of rejecting the promise.
Note: Learnings are effective only in the context of similar code segments. To apply general coding guidelines, please configure review instructions. You can manage existing learnings in the app.
| res.on('end', () => { | ||
| resolve(data); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing HTTP status code verification
Upon receiving the response, the code does not check the HTTP status code before resolving with the data. This could lead to handling error responses (e.g., 4xx or 5xx status codes) as if they were successful, which may cause issues downstream.
Consider verifying the res.statusCode and handle non-200 status codes appropriately. Here's a suggested change:
// Handle the end of the response
res.on('end', () => {
+ if (res.statusCode !== 200) {
+ if (process.env.DEBUG) {
+ // eslint-disable-next-line no-console
+ console.warn(`Received non-200 status code: ${res.statusCode}`);
+ }
+ resolve(PortStateEnum.ERROR);
+ return;
+ }
resolve(data);
});Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point! But it's better to do when we just got a response.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shumkov, you're absolutely correct. Checking the status code immediately when we receive the response is a better approach. Here's how you might adjust the code:
return new Promise((resolve) => {
const req = https.request(options, (res) => {
let data = '';
+ // Check if the status code is 200
+ if (res.statusCode !== 200) {
+ if (process.env.DEBUG) {
+ // eslint-disable-next-line no-console
+ console.warn(`Port check request failed with status code ${res.statusCode}`);
+ }
+ // Consume response data to free up memory
+ res.resume();
+ resolve(PortStateEnum.ERROR);
+ return;
+ }
// Optionally set the encoding to receive strings directly
res.setEncoding('utf8');
// Collect data chunks
res.on('data', (chunk) => {
data += chunk;
if (data.length > MAX_RESPONSE_SIZE) {
resolve(PortStateEnum.ERROR);
if (process.env.DEBUG) {
// eslint-disable-next-line no-console
console.warn('Port check response size exceeded');
}
req.destroy();
}
});
// Handle the end of the response
res.on('end', () => {
resolve(data);
});
});
// Handle request errors
req.on('error', (e) => {
if (process.env.DEBUG) {
// eslint-disable-next-line no-console
console.warn(`Port check request failed: ${e}`);
}
resolve(PortStateEnum.ERROR);
});
req.end();
});I've noted this for future reviews.
(•ᴥ•)ゝ
✏️ Learnings added
Learnt from: shumkov
PR: dashpay/platform#2162
File: packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js:117-119
Timestamp: 2024-09-26T16:21:07.033Z
Learning: In the `checkPortStatus` function, it's better to check the HTTP status code immediately upon receiving the response in the `https.request` callback, rather than in the `res.on('end')` callback.
Note: Learnings are effective only in the context of similar code segments. To apply general coding guidelines, please configure review instructions. You can manage existing learnings in the app.
🧠 Learnings used
Learnt from: shumkov
PR: dashpay/platform#2162
File: packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js:121-127
Timestamp: 2024-09-26T14:28:54.892Z
Learning: In the `mnowatch.checkPortStatus` function, failures should resolve with `PortStateEnum.ERROR` instead of rejecting the promise.
Learnt from: shumkov
PR: dashpay/platform#2162
File: packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js:87-96
Timestamp: 2024-09-26T14:58:26.560Z
Learning: In the `checkPortStatus` function, it's better to use `options.timeout` to set the socket timeout for both request and response.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js (1)
67-82: LGTM: Improved implementation addressing IPv6 issueThe changes effectively address the IPv6 problem mentioned in the PR objectives by forcing IPv4 usage. The implementation using the HTTPS module with a Promise-based approach is well-structured.
Consider adding a catch block to the Promise to handle any unexpected errors that might occur during the request setup:
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { try { const req = https.request(options, (res) => { // ... existing code ... }); // ... existing code ... } catch (error) { if (process.env.DEBUG) { console.warn(`Error setting up request: ${error}`); } resolve(PortStateEnum.ERROR); } });This addition would ensure that any errors during the request setup are properly handled and don't cause unhandled promise rejections.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js (2)
Learnt from: shumkov PR: dashpay/platform#2162 File: packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js:87-96 Timestamp: 2024-09-26T14:58:26.560Z Learning: In the `checkPortStatus` function, it's better to use `options.timeout` to set the socket timeout for both request and response.Learnt from: shumkov PR: dashpay/platform#2162 File: packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js:121-127 Timestamp: 2024-09-26T14:28:54.892Z Learning: In the `mnowatch.checkPortStatus` function, failures should resolve with `PortStateEnum.ERROR` instead of rejecting the promise.
🔇 Additional comments (5)
packages/dashmate/src/status/providers.js (5)
1-5: LGTM: Imports and constants are well-definedThe addition of the 'https' import and the definition of MAX_RESPONSE_SIZE are good practices. The MAX_RESPONSE_SIZE constant helps prevent potential DoS attacks by limiting the response size.
83-119: LGTM: Robust response handling implementationThe response handling is well-implemented with several good practices:
- Status code check to ensure only successful responses are processed.
- Efficient data collection in chunks.
- Maximum response size check to prevent potential memory issues.
- Consistent error handling and debugging logs.
These changes significantly improve the robustness of the
checkPortStatusfunction.
122-129: LGTM: Consistent error handlingThe error handling implementation is consistent with the project's conventions:
- Errors are logged only when the DEBUG environment variable is set, which is good for production environments.
- The function resolves with PortStateEnum.ERROR on error, aligning with the learned practice from previous discussions.
This approach ensures consistent error handling across the codebase.
131-132: LGTM: Proper request finalizationThe
req.end()call is correctly placed to finalize and send the request. This is a crucial step in the HTTPS request process.
67-132: Summary: Effective solution with robust implementationThe changes in this PR effectively address the IPv6 issue mentioned in the objectives while maintaining high code quality. Key points:
- Forced IPv4 usage resolves the original problem.
- Robust error handling and response processing improve reliability.
- Consistent coding practices and well-placed comments enhance maintainability.
Regarding the security concern raised by QuantumExplorer:
The implementation includes several security-conscious practices such as:
- Limiting the response size to prevent potential DoS attacks.
- Using HTTPS for secure communication.
- Proper error handling to prevent information leakage.
No apparent security vulnerabilities have been introduced by these changes. However, it's always beneficial to have a dedicated security review to ensure all aspects have been considered.
|
@shumkov can I remove the suggestion to disable IPv6 now? It was added in dashpay/docs#390 |
Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Issue #2100
What was done?
How Has This Been Tested?
Running locally
Breaking Changes
None
Checklist:
For repository code-owners and collaborators only
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
httpsmodule.Bug Fixes
requestTextmethod to streamline functionality.