Port/ICMP parameter ranges should enforce first <= last#8578
Merged
Conversation
Sort of confirms where we're at -- we're accepting mis-specofoed ranges.
Now we just need to make sure that bad values in the database don't get us in trouble.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The console correctly prevents ranges like
3000-1000forL4PortRanges, but we don't catch this in the API itself. This PR enforces that on the frontend, with some allowances for the fact that we might still have such rows in CRDB.I was torn between enforcing this using transparent types to apply the first/last constraint, which worked in terms of being invisible in the JsonSchema, versus what I did here which is just checking the invariant on conversion to a db::VpcFirewallRule. Unfortunately the former was far messier, and ended up splitting the logic such that it was a little harder to intuit what was checked and where. So, we validate this next to the filter array length checks, which felt fairly natural.