While working on https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/5665 I found myself digging into the `Ratelimiter` class and seeing that it was both:
* Rather undocumented, and
* causing a *lot* of config checks
This PR attempts to refactor and comment the `Ratelimiter` class, as well as encourage config file accesses to only be done at instantiation.
Best to be reviewed commit-by-commit.
* Rate-limiting for registration
* Add unit test for registration rate limiting
* Add config parameters for rate limiting on auth endpoints
* Doc
* Fix doc of rate limiting function
Co-Authored-By: babolivier <contact@brendanabolivier.com>
* Incorporate review
* Fix config parsing
* Fix linting errors
* Set default config for auth rate limiting
* Fix tests
* Add changelog
* Advance reactor instead of mocked clock
* Move parameters to registration specific config and give them more sensible default values
* Remove unused config options
* Don't mock the rate limiter un MAU tests
* Rename _register_with_store into register_with_store
* Make CI happy
* Remove unused import
* Update sample config
* Fix ratelimiting test for py2
* Add non-guest test
This closes#2602
v1auth was created to account for the differences in status code between
the v1 and v2_alpha revisions of the protocol (401 vs 403 for invalid
tokens). However since those protocols were merged, this makes the r0
version/endpoint internally inconsistent, and violates the
specification for the r0 endpoint.
This might break clients that rely on this inconsistency with the
specification. This is said to affect the legacy angular reference
client. However, I feel that restoring parity with the spec is more
important. Either way, it is critical to inform developers about this
change, in case they rely on the illegal behaviour.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Tschira <nota@notafile.com>
This follows the same flows-based flow as regular registration, but as
the only implemented flow has no requirements, it auto-succeeds. In the
future, other flows (e.g. captcha) may be required, so clients should
treat this like the regular registration flow choices.
A couple of weird caveats:
* If we can't validate your macaroon, we fall back to checking that
your access token is in the DB, and ignoring the failure
* Even if we can validate your macaroon, we still have to hit the DB to
get the access token ID, which we pretend is a device ID all over the
codebase.
This mostly adds the interesting code, and points out the two pieces we
need to delete (and necessary conditions) in order to fix the above
caveats.
Removes device_id and ClientInfo
device_id is never actually written, and the matrix.org DB has no
non-null entries for it. Right now, it's just cluttering up code.
This doesn't remove the columns from the database, because that's
fiddly.
Patrick Cloke