chore(zetaclient): mask compliance addresses #3216
Conversation
gartnera
requested review from
brewmaster012,
kingpinXD,
lumtis,
ws4charlie,
skosito,
swift1337 and
fbac
as code owners
|
Important Review skippedAuto incremental reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the 📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes involve an update to the Changes
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
zetaclient/config/types.go (1)
70-72: Consider masking additional sensitive fieldsWhile masking
RestrictedAddressesis a good start, consider evaluating whetherLogPathinComplianceConfigcould contain sensitive information that should also be masked.If the log path could contain sensitive information (e.g., usernames in paths), consider adding masking:
type ComplianceConfig struct { - LogPath string `json:"LogPath"` + LogPath string `json:"LogPath" mask:"filled"` RestrictedAddresses []string `json:"RestrictedAddresses" mask:"zero"` }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
zetaclient/config/types.go(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
zetaclient/config/types.go (1)
Pattern **/*.go: Review the Go code, point out issues relative to principles of clean code, expressiveness, and performance.
🔇 Additional comments (1)
zetaclient/config/types.go (1)
71-71: Verify masking doesn't affect address comparison
The masking implementation correctly only affects the string representation while preserving the actual address values for comparison in GetRestrictedAddressBook(). However, let's verify this behavior.
Also applies to: 184-192
✅ Verification successful
Masking implementation is safe for address comparison
The masking directive mask:"zero" on RestrictedAddresses only affects logging representation while preserving the actual functionality:
- Address comparison in
ContainRestrictedAddressusesstrings.ToLowerfor case-insensitive matching - The actual addresses are stored in
restrictedAddressBookand used for comparison - Test cases in
compliance_test.goverify the correct behavior with various address scenarios
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the masking implementation in other parts of the codebase
# only affects logging and not the actual address comparison logic
# Search for direct usage of RestrictedAddresses
rg -l "ComplianceConfig.*RestrictedAddresses|RestrictedAddresses.*ComplianceConfig" --type go
# Search for potential logging of these addresses
rg "log\.[A-Za-z]+\(.*RestrictedAddresses" --type go
Length of output: 363
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine how RestrictedAddresses are used in the compliance logic
# Check the implementation of GetRestrictedAddressBook and related functions
ast-grep --pattern 'func $$$GetRestrictedAddressBook$$$($$$) $$$'
# Check the test files to understand the behavior
cat zetaclient/compliance/compliance_test.go
Length of output: 1955
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the actual implementation of address comparison logic
# Check for IsCctxRestricted implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'func IsCctxRestricted($$$) bool {
$$$
}'
# Look for any address normalization or comparison logic
rg -A 5 "strings\.ToLower.*RestrictedAddresses|RestrictedAddresses.*strings\.ToLower" --type go
Length of output: 612
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the ContainRestrictedAddress implementation
# Look for ContainRestrictedAddress function
ast-grep --pattern 'func ContainRestrictedAddress($$$) bool {
$$$
}'
# Check for any address comparison or normalization in config package
rg -A 5 "func.*ContainRestrictedAddress|strings\.EqualFold.*RestrictedAddresses" zetaclient/config/
Length of output: 958
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
zetaclient/config/types.go (1)
71-71: Consider documenting the masking behaviorAdd a comment explaining that the addresses are masked in logs to reduce spam.
type ComplianceConfig struct { LogPath string `json:"LogPath"` + // RestrictedAddresses are masked in logs to reduce boot-time spam RestrictedAddresses []string `json:"RestrictedAddresses" mask:"zero"` }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
zetaclient/config/types.go(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
zetaclient/config/types.go (1)
Pattern **/*.go: Review the Go code, point out issues relative to principles of clean code, expressiveness, and performance.
🔇 Additional comments (1)
zetaclient/config/types.go (1)
71-71: Verify the impact on GetRestrictedAddressBook()
The masking should not affect the actual address values used in GetRestrictedAddressBook().
✅ Verification successful
Masking of RestrictedAddresses does not affect compliance checks
The verification confirms that the masking of RestrictedAddresses does not impact the actual address values used in compliance checks. The implementation shows:
GetRestrictedAddressBook()directly uses the raw values fromRestrictedAddressesto build a lookup map- This map is stored in a package-level variable
restrictedAddressBookand used for all compliance checks - The compliance system correctly enforces restrictions through
IsCctxRestricted()which uses these unmasked values
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that GetRestrictedAddressBook() is not using masked values
# Search for any direct usage of masked addresses
ast-grep --pattern 'GetRestrictedAddressBook()' -A 10
Length of output: 55
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find the implementation and usage of GetRestrictedAddressBook
# First, find the function definition
ast-grep --pattern 'func $_($$$) GetRestrictedAddressBook($$$) {
$$$
}'
# Also search for any usage of RestrictedAddresses field
rg "RestrictedAddresses" -A 5
Length of output: 8717
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's find the implementation of GetRestrictedAddressBook and how the values are used
# Search for the function implementation
rg -A 10 "func.*GetRestrictedAddressBook"
# Search for where this function is used
rg "GetRestrictedAddressBook\(" -A 3
Length of output: 1247
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's find where restrictedAddressBook is used to understand the complete flow
rg "restrictedAddressBook" -A 3
# Also check if there are any other functions that might be using the restricted addresses
rg "IsAddressRestricted|IsCctxRestricted" -A 5
Length of output: 6910
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #3216 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 62.38% 62.06% -0.32%
===========================================
Files 427 428 +1
Lines 30416 30439 +23
===========================================
- Hits 18974 18891 -83
- Misses 10596 10708 +112
+ Partials 846 840 -6
|
Mask compliance addresses to prevent log spam on zetaclient. We configure hundreds/thousands of these which are currently spamming the logs every zetaclient boot.
Reference: https://github.com/showa-93/go-mask?tab=readme-ov-file#mask-tags
Summary by CodeRabbit