Auth systems/OAuth/IRC log 2013-06-06

Jun 07 11:11:29 	sorry, I only got halfway through reading that Tyler thread, despite the fact that robla asked me to comment on it more than a day ago Jun 07 11:12:05 	but it seemed like Chris and Brad were pretty well on top of it Jun 07 11:12:05 	Tim, understandable. I was hoping to get your thoughts on Brad's design in general Jun 07 11:12:50 	specifically on https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/66286/ ? Jun 07 11:13:17 	Yeah, I'm on the fence-- I like what Brad's implementation gives us, but I can also see their point about layering another authorization piece on top of user rights Jun 07 11:13:19 	Yeah Jun 07 11:13:47 	I think the summary is basically that Tyler doesn't think OAuth should be an AuthPlugin, and he and Daniel Friesen think that we should do a parallel system to $wgGroupPermissions for OAuth rather than when I did. Jun 07 11:16:02 	anomie: my interpretation is they were wanting to keep around lists of permission groups in the oauth UI, and then the effective rights are their user rights & granted rights Jun 07 11:16:13 	So yeah, kinda parallel to group permissions Jun 07 11:16:36 	But not actually using groups Jun 07 11:17:14 	They didn't say it explicitly, but something like $wgGroupPermissions but for OAuth seems like basically what they're getting at with their talk about "grouping" rights. Jun 07 11:18:12 	well, a group as in $wgGroupPermissions is a group of users rather than a group of rights Jun 07 11:19:01 	Right, it was a "grouping" of rights Jun 07 11:19:16 	Oh? I must be thinking about $wgGroupPermissions wrong then. I thought it defined groups of rights, then those users are associated with those groups to grant them the rights. Jun 07 11:20:38 	maybe originally, but groups do all kinds of things now Jun 07 11:21:08 	like $wgRevokePermissions Jun 07 11:21:16 	I was about to mention that ;) Jun 07 11:21:36 	just reading the relevant post from daniel Jun 07 11:23:45 	so what he's talking about is purely a UI concept Jun 07 11:23:52 	right? Jun 07 11:24:40 	so where would all these rights be registered once authorized to be used by the user? Jun 07 11:24:54 	As I pointed out, it also affects the expectations of what is allowed, but yes, the implementation is UI Jun 07 11:25:08 	He's talking UI, yes. I'm not sure how else we'd do what he's talking about though. Jun 07 11:25:45 	Aaron|home: In the db somewhere-- we will want a "grants" table Jun 07 11:25:58 *	Aaron|home is just to thing what happens if the rights system gets tweaked a bit, like splitting up a right Jun 07 11:26:05 	I guess we'd keep the old ones around for b/c Jun 07 11:26:19 	Aaron|home: Yep, exactly Jun 07 11:26:21 	if you stored right group names in the grants table, this wouldn't matter Jun 07 11:26:39 	I image if we group the rights in the UI, we would want to store the actual rights in the DB Jun 07 11:26:41 	not really a killing difference though Jun 07 11:27:08 	Although that has another problem, if a group gets added rights then users haven't necessarily authorized the tools to have those rights. Jun 07 11:27:11 	So store 'edit','read','create', etc instead of "Create and Edit Pages" Jun 07 11:27:19 	(re "if you stored right group names") Jun 07 11:28:42 	anomie: Yep. And that's what I don't like about the groupings--- if the user sees "Create and Edit Pages", the grouping changes, then another app is granted the same grouping, it could be different rights Jun 07 11:29:05 	I definitely don't think we want to store the grouping, and allow them to be changed. That would not be nice to users. Jun 07 11:29:33 	Hmm. If we store 'edit','read','create', then another right gets added to "Create and Edit Pages", what happens in the UI now that there's no covering group name? Jun 07 11:30:14 	E.g. "Create and Edit Pages" becomes 'edit','read','create','reply' or something Jun 07 11:30:34 	anomie: you mean like a UI that just list the current rights you give to an app (to revise them ect)? Jun 07 11:30:40 	Aaron|home: Exactly Jun 07 11:30:41 	that would be a bit tricky Jun 07 11:30:45 	It does get messy. Jun 07 11:31:09 <Aaron|home>	"Create and Edit Pages v1" ;) Jun 07 11:31:15 	Ugh Jun 07 11:32:06 	store an object that has grouping name and permisions? (I was going to make a joke about doing that, but actually, I'm not sure) Jun 07 11:32:26 <Aaron|home>	and if group A changed, but not B, and they add B, will A accidentally change the A rights? Jun 07 11:32:39 <Aaron|home>	I could picture that kind of bug in the form, heh Jun 07 11:33:08 <Aaron|home>	so yeah, maybe you'd have to show specific rights in that case Jun 07 11:33:55 	Or do we just want to keep the thing I implemented instead of messing with rights like this? Jun 07 11:34:18 	that is the real question... Jun 07 11:35:00 	So anomie, the thing I'm worried about with your implementation is that it seems like it's one more thing for the api developers to remember to use, and they can get wrong Jun 07 11:35:36 <TimStarling>	if the API developers forget it, the default is sensible, right? Jun 07 11:36:04 	The default is that the module requires a permission that is the same as the name of the module. Jun 07 11:36:33 <TimStarling>	one of the reasons for using API module names is because rights are not sufficiently fine-grained, right? Jun 07 11:36:36 	So action=foobar would require the "foobar" permission. Query modules are slightly different, action=query&list=foobaz would require "query-foobaz". Jun 07 11:36:59 <TimStarling>	I mean, they are too fine-grained for some things, and too coarse for others Jun 07 11:37:07 <Aaron|home>	or sort of the opposite in a way, right Jun 07 11:37:26 	It just seems a halfway sane default. The module can explicitly make its permissions more granular, or it can make it less granular if that makes sense (e.g. action=block and action=unblock both use the "block" permission) Jun 07 11:39:13 <TimStarling>	so daniel just proposes to add more rights for every case where the current system is too coarse? Jun 07 11:39:41 	That's how it sounds to me, yes. Like "editmyuserjs" and "editmyusercss" rights. Jun 07 11:40:03 <TimStarling>	that particular example was wrong Jun 07 11:40:14 	? Jun 07 11:40:23 <TimStarling>	well, incomplete, maybe Jun 07 11:40:51 <TimStarling>	you would also need to change the edit permission so that it doesn't grant those two things Jun 07 11:41:22 <TimStarling>	which would break everyone's LocalSettings.php since everyone's $wgGroupPermissions would be wrong Jun 07 11:41:44 <TimStarling>	granting only edit where edit+editmyuserjs+editmyusercss was desired Jun 07 11:43:10 <TimStarling>	you would have to introduce a whole new rights concept underneath the current one, in order to maintain backwards compatibility Jun 07 11:44:02 	An 'edit' grants 'edit-base'+'editmyuserjs'+'editmyusercss' sort of thing? Jun 07 11:44:13 <TimStarling>	yes Jun 07 11:46:01 <TimStarling>	I sympathise with the idea of having a unified rights concept across both OAuth and the regular UI, but it does seem like it would be pretty complicated Jun 07 11:48:57 	anomie: So using your grants for an api like centralauth's ApiQueryGlobalUserInfo where a user can get suppressed usernames if they have the rights for it. Jun 07 11:49:22 	The user would grant a client access to QueryGlobalUserInfo Jun 07 11:50:12 	Yes. Actually "query-globaluserinfo" at the moment. Jun 07 11:50:13 	But if an admin didn't want the app looking up suppressed users, they would have to get the api author to make a QueryGlobalUserInfo-suppressed (or something) right, and then grant that explicitly? Jun 07 11:50:35 	Yes Jun 07 11:51:28 	And the api author would in their code check for the right. And OAuth would differentiate, but the normal api probably would grant that automatically. Jun 07 11:51:33 <TimStarling>	is there any documentation of the current rights list? Jun 07 11:52:49 <TimStarling>	also do we know in exactly how many cases the current rights list is too coarse? Jun 07 11:53:12 	I assumed https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User_rights was reasonably up to date, but I think Aaron though it was missing a lot Jun 07 11:53:14 <Aaron|home>	csteipp: sounds scary :) Jun 07 11:54:14 <Aaron|home>	well extensions mostly Jun 07 11:54:38 <TimStarling>	in terms of procedure: I think it would be best if we can reach consensus with Daniel and Platonides Jun 07 11:54:40 	csteipp: Yeah. The change to the API module would probably look something vaguely like https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/66286/2/includes/api/ApiProtect.php. For non-OAuth access, this whole new permission system is just ignored so things would work just as they do now; OAuth would override AuthPlugin::checkGrantsForApi to make the checking actually check anything. Jun 07 11:54:43 	Aaron|home: Yeah, there are definitely some extension api authors who didn't even check for the user rights.... Jun 07 11:55:20 <Aaron|home>	csteipp: it would be nice to rank rights into sensitivity tiers and not grant the higher ones (and ones not ranked at all) by default Jun 07 11:55:42 <Aaron|home>	I mean we already maintain $wgAvailableRights in extensions, this wouldn't be much more work Jun 07 11:55:45 <TimStarling>	it may be that it *is* possible to revoke editmyusercss from edit Jun 07 11:55:50 <TimStarling>	without a backwards compatibility layer Jun 07 11:55:51 	TimStarling: Out of core modules, mainly editing I think is too coarse. Jun 07 11:56:18 <TimStarling>	assuming that's the extent of it, maybe that is not too much to ask of third party users Jun 07 11:56:48 <TimStarling>	since looking at the right list, it seems likely that we have done similar things in the past Jun 07 11:57:17 <TimStarling>	e.g. the introduction of the reupload right Jun 07 11:57:34 <TimStarling>	originally it would have just been upload Jun 07 11:58:40 <Aaron|home>	right Jun 07 11:58:47 <TimStarling>	how many pieces would edit have to be split into? Jun 07 11:59:15 <TimStarling>	I guess the answer is in anomie's patch Jun 07 12:00:45 <TimStarling>	that patch just adds override-watchlist-pref, right? Jun 07 12:01:04 	editmyusercss and editmyuserjs. Also editing of sysop-protected pages without granting protect, or editprotected which allows overriding *all* protection levels. And maybe autoconfirmed too, since that controls more than just editing autoconfirmed-protected pages. Jun 07 12:02:13 	"override-watchlist-pref" could easily go away. I put it in mainly so a tool could be prevented from making edits without adding them to the watchlist, but that's not exactly a huge deal if we would remove that. Jun 07 12:04:07 <TimStarling>	I see, in ApiBase::getPermissionsForTitle Jun 07 12:06:11 	Oh. And there's also "missing" rights for 'view-my-watchlist', 'edit-my-watchlist', 'see-my-private-info' (e.g. meta=userinfo&uiprop=realname|email|hasmsg|options) Jun 07 12:06:13 <TimStarling>	the editprotected right is known to be broken, there is a bug for that Jun 07 12:06:52 <TimStarling>	so I don't think there would be too many tears about changing what it does Jun 07 12:08:25 	And I don't know if there are extensions with insufficiently-granular rights with respect to viewing log entries versus taking the action that creates those log entries. Jun 07 12:12:19 <TimStarling>	ok, so split edit and autoconfirmed, fix the broken protection system, introduce maybe 3 or 4 new rights to core for private data Jun 07 12:13:19 <TimStarling>	so maybe half a dozen new rights altogether, that have to be added on upgrade for anyone who is setting $wgGroupPermissions instead of modifying the version from DefaultSettings.php Jun 07 12:16:13 <TimStarling>	extension rights wouldn't need to be done as part of the initial project Jun 07 12:17:55 <TimStarling>	then there is this grouping system Jun 07 12:19:15 <TimStarling>	what was the reason again for preferring storage of right grants instead of group grants? Jun 07 12:19:26 	In case they chage Jun 07 12:20:08 	change. So if the user grants some set of rights, if it's updated, it seems (to me) that the app shouldn't be allowed those new rights, unless the user re-authorizes. Jun 07 12:20:37 <TimStarling>	I am thinking that maybe the app should be allowed the new rights Jun 07 12:21:03 <TimStarling>	since we are talking about splitting rights and that is a fairly likely reason for groups to be changed in the future Jun 07 12:21:44 <TimStarling>	groups could be specific enough that they wouldn't be updated to grant completely unrelated rights Jun 07 12:22:49 	That would be the hope. I'm assuming it's something we would require very high privileges to change, if not a shell config? Jun 07 12:23:10 <TimStarling>	shell config would be fine, I think Jun 07 12:23:55 <TimStarling>	the groups could be fixed, then you could have localisation for the names and descriptions of them Jun 07 12:24:24 <TimStarling>	but maybe we should think of a name other than "group", or at least some adjective Jun 07 12:24:47 	That would probably work. Jun 07 12:25:11 <TimStarling>	otherwise I'm going to get confused talking about groups of rights Jun 07 12:25:53 	"permissions" ? Jun 07 12:26:17 <TimStarling>	yes, that would work Jun 07 12:26:37 <TimStarling>	the current code already uses that word somewhere, doesn't it? Jun 07 12:26:50 <TimStarling>	I mean, current as in brad's patch Jun 07 12:27:11 	Yes, it does. Jun 07 12:28:23 <TimStarling>	ok, so if we do this, it will probably set us back a week or two Jun 07 12:28:42 <TimStarling>	would you agree with that estimate, anomie? Jun 07 12:29:57 	I've never been good at estimating time. I don't think we have much written besides my patch, so we haven't lost a whole lot. Jun 07 12:30:25 <TimStarling>	in exchange, we would get: Jun 07 12:30:44 <TimStarling>	* a happy Tyler, Daniel and Platonides Jun 07 12:31:26 <TimStarling>	* a simpler UI, due to explicit mappings between rights and UI permission display Jun 07 12:31:51 <TimStarling>	* more elegant backend due to the ability to use a unified rights concept Jun 07 12:32:38 <TimStarling>	disadvantage: explicit permissions mapping needs to be done for each extension that wants to use OAuth Jun 07 12:33:34 	I can look at adding the extra rights to core, which shouldn't take extremely long to do but probably longer to make sure it's not missing anything. Jun 07 12:34:21 <Aaron|home>	TimStarling: so we store the "permissions" instead of rights and those always reflect their current extension definitions? Jun 07 12:34:39 <TimStarling>	Aaron|home: yes, just like groups Jun 07 12:34:42 	I think I'm only nervous about fixing protection (probably because I've never touched much of it). That seemed like a big project last time we talked. Jun 07 12:34:44 *	Aaron|home wonders why his wifi has two bars :/ Jun 07 12:34:55 <Aaron|home>	seems like this could work Jun 07 12:34:59 <TimStarling>	yes, fixing protection is one of the two weeks of my estimate Jun 07 12:35:14 	A wifi card walked into two bars... Jun 07 12:35:20 <TimStarling>	one week for protection, one for everything else Jun 07 12:35:26 	gatcha Jun 07 12:35:34 	TimStarling: I think last time we talked about this (February?), you said you had some notes about fixing protection? Jun 07 12:36:02 <TimStarling>	yes, I thought I had put them in a bug, but maybe not since I haven't found the bug yet Jun 07 12:36:06 <TimStarling>	if not, I will file the bug Jun 07 12:37:42 <TimStarling>	ok, I guess I will post something along these lines to wikitech-l, if everyone's happy with it Jun 07 12:38:00 	I'll start looking at the non-protection-related permission bits of the core changes tomorrow. Jun 07 12:38:40 <TimStarling>	regarding IRC logs: I have xchat log everything Jun 07 12:38:55 <TimStarling>	so I can post logs of this channel, including previous discussions, if we want to do that Jun 07 12:40:09 <TimStarling>	ok, got to go Jun 07 12:40:16 	Maybe post todays? Thanks! Jun 07 12:40:22 <Aaron|home>	bye Jun 07 12:40:30 	Thanks everyone! Jun 07 12:40:43 <TimStarling>	yeah, I'll post today