fix bug atmos vendor pull URI cannot contain path traversal sequences and git schema #899
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis pull request introduces modifications to URI validation and error handling in the Atmos vendoring system. The changes primarily focus on relaxing URI validation constraints in Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Tip CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command 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
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
Please add test conditions or at least examples to examples/tests so we verify this works and don't introduce future regressions |
osterman
changed the title
the tests for many vendoring scenarios, including imports, are here https://github.com/cloudposse/atmos/blob/main/examples/tests/vendor.yaml |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
examples/demo-vendoring/vendor.yaml (1)
12-12: Consider standardizing URL format across all componentsWhile the new format with
git::https://is more secure, we should maintain consistency. Theweatherandipinfocomponents still use the old format.Consider updating all components to use the new format:
- component: "weather" - source: "github.com/cloudposse/atmos.git//examples/demo-library/{{ .Component }}?ref={{.Version}}" + source: "git::https://github.com/cloudposse/atmos.git//examples/demo-library/{{ .Component }}?ref={{.Version}}" - component: "ipinfo" - source: "github.com/cloudposse/atmos.git//examples/demo-library/{{ .Component }}?ref={{.Version}}" + source: "git::https://github.com/cloudposse/atmos.git//examples/demo-library/{{ .Component }}?ref={{.Version}}"Also applies to: 23-24, 31-32
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
examples/demo-vendoring/vendor.yaml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
examples/demo-vendoring/vendor.yaml (1)
12-12: APPROVED: Enhanced security with explicit Git protocol and HTTPS! 🛡️
The addition of git:: prefix and explicit HTTPS protocol improves security and clarity. Let's verify this new format works as expected.
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the validation code to understand how the URI is validated.
Let me check the actual implementation of the vendor utility functions.
Let me check the vendoring documentation for any additional context.
The new Git URL format is valid and secure! 🛡️
Based on the code analysis, the git::https:// format is fully supported by the validation logic in validateURI() function. The function specifically checks for valid schemes including git, and the URL format matches the expected pattern. The change improves security by making the protocol explicit while maintaining compatibility with the vendoring system.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the new Git URL format in other vendor configurations
# Look for any existing usage of the new format to confirm it's supported
# Search for similar Git URL patterns in vendor configs
echo "Searching for existing Git URL patterns in vendor configs..."
rg -g '*.yaml' -g '*.yml' 'git::https://'
# Look for any validation-related code that might affect this URL format
echo "Checking for URL validation code..."
rg -t go 'validateURI|validateURL|validateGitURL'
Length of output: 581
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the URI validation implementation
echo "Checking URI validation implementation..."
ast-grep --pattern 'func validateURI($_) {
$$$
}'
# Look for any tests related to URI validation
echo "Checking for URI validation tests..."
rg -t go 'TestValidateURI|TestVendorURI'
# Check for any vendor-related test files
echo "Looking for vendor test files..."
fd -e go -e yaml test.*vendor
Length of output: 381
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the content of vendor_utils.go
echo "Checking vendor utils implementation..."
cat internal/exec/vendor_utils.go
# Look for any vendor-related configuration or documentation
echo "Checking for vendor documentation..."
fd -e md -e txt vendor
Length of output: 21139
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check vendoring documentation
echo "Checking vendoring documentation..."
cat website/docs/glossary/vendoring.md
# Look for any test files with vendor examples
echo "Looking for vendor test examples..."
fd -e yaml -e yml test.*vendor
Length of output: 454
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
examples/tests/vendor.yaml (1)
Line range hint
16-24: Well-documented source configuration provides clear guidance 📘The comprehensive documentation of supported protocols and URL formats serves as both a test case and implementation guide. This is particularly valuable for validating the URI validation changes.
Consider adding an explicit example of what path traversal sequences are not allowed in the comments to help prevent future security issues.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
examples/tests/vendor.yaml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
examples/tests/vendor.yaml (1)
Line range hint 1-7: Excellent test coverage! This file serves multiple test scenarios 🎯
The comment block at the top documents various test commands, making this file an excellent test fixture for the URI changes. It covers:
- Basic vendor pull
- Component-specific pulls
- Tag-based filtering
| @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ spec: | |||
| - test | |||
| - networking | |||
| - component: "vpc-flow-logs-bucket" | |||
| source: "github.com/cloudposse/terraform-aws-components.git//modules/vpc-flow-logs-bucket?ref={{.Version}}" | |||
| source: "git::https://github.com/cloudposse/terraform-aws-components.git//modules/vpc-flow-logs-bucket?ref={{.Version}}" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Git URL format needs to be updated across example files! 🔄
The codebase shows inconsistent URL formats in example and test files. While some files use the secure git:: prefix, others don't. Based on the code analysis:
- The validation logic in
determineSourceTypefunction supports multiple source types (OCI, local, remote) but doesn't enforce thegit::prefix - Several example files still use the old format without the
git::prefix:examples/quick-start-advanced/vendor.yamlexamples/tests/vendor/*.yamlexamples/demo-vendoring/**/*.yamlexamples/demo-component-versions/vendor.yaml
These files should be updated to use the secure git:: prefix to maintain consistency with the security improvements and to serve as proper examples for users.
🔗 Analysis chain
Strong approval: Proper Git URL format enhances security! 💪
The addition of the git:: prefix is a robust improvement that explicitly declares the protocol, making the source URL more secure and resistant to path traversal attacks. This change aligns perfectly with the PR's objective.
Let's verify other Git URLs in the codebase follow this pattern:
Git URL format needs standardization across example files! 🛡️
Several example and test files are using potentially unsafe Git URLs without the git:: prefix. This inconsistency could lead to confusion and potential security risks.
Locations requiring attention:
examples/quick-start-advanced/vendor.yamlexamples/tests/vendor/*.yamlfilesexamples/demo-vendoring/**/*.yamlfilesexamples/demo-component-versions/vendor.yaml
Let's verify if this is a test requirement or if these files need to be updated to match the secure pattern:
Let's check the code to see if there's any validation logic that treats these URLs differently:
Let's check the vendor-related code specifically:
Let's check the specific validation logic for source URLs:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for potentially unsafe Git URLs without the git:: prefix
rg -g '*.{yaml,yml}' 'source:.*github\.com.*git.*ref=' --no-line-number | grep -v 'git::'
Length of output: 1932
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if these files are part of test cases for invalid formats
rg -g '*.{yaml,yml}' -B 2 -A 2 'source:.*github\.com.*git.*ref=' | grep -i -E 'test|invalid|bad|wrong|error'
Length of output: 1909
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for URL validation logic in the codebase
ast-grep --pattern 'func $_(source string) $_ {
$$$
}'
# Also check for any constants or documentation about URL formats
rg -g '*.go' -i 'git.*url|source.*url'
Length of output: 832
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for vendor-related URL handling
rg -g '*.go' -A 5 'func.*[Vv]endor'
rg -g '*.go' -A 5 'ParseVendorSource|ValidateVendorSource'
Length of output: 13623
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for source URL validation in vendor-related files
rg -g 'vendor*.go' -B 3 -A 10 'source.*=|validateSource|parseSource|Source.*string'
# Also check for any URL-related constants or validation patterns
rg -g '*.go' 'const.*source.*=|var.*source.*=' -A 2
Length of output: 20412
| if strings.Contains(uri, "..") { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("URI cannot contain path traversal sequences") | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add a test for vendoring from:
../../demo-library/weather
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@osterman @aknysh
To test the vendor functionality, I reviewed the process and observed that it does not break even if there are errors. However, simply running the vendor pull command is not sufficient as a test.
Instead, there should be specific test cases that validate the process, including counting the vendor files to ensure accuracy. For example, we should test the vendor process on Windows to confirm it does not fail or break. Currently, the process only logs the outcome without actually vendoring any files, which is not reliable for testing purposes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, can you add some proper tests for this then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
internal/exec/vendor_utils.go (1)
515-523: Enhance error handling for URL parsingThe URL parsing error is silently ignored, which could mask potential issues. Consider handling the error explicitly or logging it for debugging purposes.
- u, err := url.Parse(*uri) - if err == nil && u.Scheme != "" { + if parsedURL, err := url.Parse(*uri); err == nil && parsedURL.Scheme != "" { + if parsedURL.Scheme == "file" { + trimmedPath := strings.TrimPrefix(filepath.ToSlash(parsedURL.Path), "/") + *uri = filepath.Clean(trimmedPath) + useLocalFileSystem = true + } + } else if err != nil { + u.LogTrace(atmosConfig, fmt.Sprintf("URL parsing warning: %v", err)) + }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
internal/exec/vendor_model.go(2 hunks)internal/exec/vendor_utils.go(3 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- internal/exec/vendor_model.go
🔇 Additional comments (4)
internal/exec/vendor_utils.go (4)
510-515: LGTM! Path handling improvements
The changes to handle absolute paths and join them with the vendor config path look good. This addresses the previous review comments about supporting relative paths.
593-594: LGTM! Consistent path handling
The use of filepath.ToSlash ensures consistent path separators across different platforms.
Line range hint 646-664: Verify security implications of relaxed URI validation
The simplified URI validation removes checks for path traversal sequences (..). While this allows for relative paths as requested, we should ensure that path traversal is properly handled during the actual file operations to prevent unauthorized access to system files.
Let's verify the path handling in the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can see extensive use of filepath.Clean, filepath.Abs, and proper path handling throughout the codebase. Let me verify the specific file operations:
Path traversal is properly handled, warrior! The codebase is secure.
The codebase demonstrates robust path handling practices:
- All file paths are cleaned using
filepath.Cleanbefore operations - File names are sanitized using
sanitizeFileNamefunction - Absolute paths are resolved using
filepath.Abs - File operations are performed after proper path validation
The removal of path traversal checks from URI validation is safe because:
- The codebase uses
filepath.Joinfor path construction - File operations are performed after sanitization
- Target paths are properly constructed and validated before operations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for path traversal handling in file operations
echo "Checking for path normalization and validation..."
rg -A 3 "filepath\.(Clean|Abs|Join|EvalSymlinks)"
# Check for potential file access outside intended directories
echo "Checking file access patterns..."
ast-grep --pattern 'os.(Open|Create|ReadFile|WriteFile|Remove|RemoveAll)($path)'
Length of output: 35394
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for file operations in vendor_utils.go and related files
echo "Checking file operations in vendor-related code..."
rg -A 3 "os\.(Open|Create|ReadFile|WriteFile|Remove|RemoveAll)" internal/exec/vendor_utils.go internal/exec/vendor_component_utils.go
# Check for path sanitization in vendor-related code
echo "Checking path sanitization..."
rg -A 3 "sanitize(File|Path|Base)" internal/exec/vendor_utils.go internal/exec/vendor_component_utils.go internal/exec/vendor_model.go
Length of output: 2093
510-523: Add test cases for relative path vendoring
Following up on @osterman's previous comments, we should add test cases for relative path vendoring, specifically including the ../../demo-library/weather scenario.
Let's check the existing test coverage:
references
Summary by CodeRabbit
Security Changes
Improvements
Configuration Updates