omnigraph/docs/user/policy.md
Andrew Altshuler da42beec41
policy: chassis fan-out — _as variants on the remaining 6 writers (MR-722) (#103)
PR #102 wired apply_schema_as. This PR completes the chassis-side
coverage so every public mutating engine entry point hits the same
Omnigraph::enforce(action, scope, actor) gate regardless of transport:

- mutate_as → enforce(Change, Branch(branch), actor)
- load_as → enforce(Change, Branch(branch), actor)
- ingest_as → enforce(Change, Branch(branch), actor); also threads
  actor through the implicit branch_create_from_as so fresh-branch
  ingest correctly hits BranchCreate too
- branch_create_as → enforce(BranchCreate, TargetBranch(name), actor)
- branch_create_from_as → enforce(BranchCreate,
  BranchTransition { source, target }, actor)
- branch_delete_as → enforce(BranchDelete, TargetBranch(name), actor)
- branch_merge_as → enforce(BranchMerge,
  BranchTransition { source, target }, actor)

Three new _as variants for branch ops (create, create_from, delete)
that had no actor surface before; existing actor-less variants delegate
with actor=None so the no-policy path is a strict no-op.

HTTP handlers updated to thread the resolved actor into the new _as
variants for branch_create and branch_delete (was previously dropped).

14 new SDK chassis tests (one allow + one deny pair per wired writer);
the existing 4 apply_schema_as tests stay. All 18 pass.

docs/user/policy.md updated to describe engine-wide enforcement and the
coarse-vs-fine layer split (engine = action gate, query layer per-row =
MR-725 future). AGENTS.md capability matrix updated to match.

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-18 03:38:18 +03:00

84 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown

# Authorization (Cedar policy)
OmniGraph integrates AWS Cedar (`cedar-policy = 4.9`) for ABAC.
## Policy actions
1. `read` — query / snapshot / list branches & commits
2. `export` — NDJSON export
3. `change` — mutations
4. `schema_apply` — apply schema migrations
5. `branch_create`
6. `branch_delete`
7. `branch_merge`
8. `admin` — reserved for policy-management surfaces (hot reload, audit log, approvals). No call site today; see MR-724 for the reservation rationale.
## Scope kinds
- `branch_scope` — applied to source branch (`read`, `export`, `change`)
- `target_branch_scope` — applied to destination (`schema_apply`, branch ops, run ops)
- `protected_branches` — named list with special rules; rule scopes are `any | protected | unprotected`
## Configuration
`omnigraph.yaml`:
```yaml
policy:
file: ./policy.yaml # Cedar rules + groups
tests: ./policy.tests.yaml # declarative test cases
```
Each rule must use exactly one of `branch_scope` or `target_branch_scope`.
## CLI
- `omnigraph policy validate` — parse + count actors, exit 1 on parse error.
- `omnigraph policy test` — run cases in `policy.tests.yaml`, exit 1 on any expectation mismatch.
- `omnigraph policy explain --actor … --action … [--branch …] [--target-branch …]` — show decision and matched rule.
## Enforcement
Policy is a property of the **engine**, not the transport. Every mutating
write — `mutate_as`, `load_as`, `ingest_as`, `apply_schema_as`,
`branch_create_as`, `branch_create_from_as`, `branch_delete_as`,
`branch_merge_as` — calls `Omnigraph::enforce(action, scope, actor)` at
the head of the method. The gate fires identically whether the call
originates from the HTTP server, the CLI, or an embedded SDK consumer.
When no `PolicyChecker` is installed (the dev/embedded default) the gate
is a strict no-op; when one is installed and the call site forgets to
thread an actor through, the gate fails closed rather than silently
bypassing.
Server-side, `authorize_request()` still runs at the HTTP boundary —
that's where actor identity is resolved from the bearer token and where
admission control / per-actor rate limits live. Engine-layer enforcement
is the **defense in depth** layer: it catches CLI direct-engine writes,
embedded SDK consumers, and any future transport that hasn't (or won't)
re-implement HTTP's authorize_request. Both layers consult the same
Cedar policy via the same `PolicyChecker` trait, so decisions cannot
disagree.
## Coarse vs. fine enforcement
There are two enforcement points, each with non-overlapping
responsibilities:
| Layer | Question it answers | Where it fires |
|---|---|---|
| **Engine-layer (coarse)** | Can this actor invoke this action against this branch / branch-transition? | `Omnigraph::enforce(action, scope, actor)` at the head of every `_as` writer; one Cedar decision per call. |
| **Query-layer (fine)** | For the rows / types this action actually touches, which can the actor see or modify? | Per-row predicates pushed into DataFusion at plan time. **Not yet implemented — see MR-725.** |
The engine-layer gate keeps `ResourceScope` deliberately at branch
granularity (`Graph`, `Branch`, `TargetBranch`, `BranchTransition`).
Per-type and per-row authority is the query-layer's job; conflating them
in `ResourceScope` would create two places per-type policy could be
evaluated and a drift surface between them.
## Actor identity (signed-claim-only)
The actor identity used for every policy decision comes from the matched bearer token — never from a client-supplied request header, query parameter, or body field. The server resolves the token at the auth middleware boundary, looks up the actor it was minted for, and overwrites whatever the handler may have placed in the policy request. Clients cannot set `actor_id` directly.
This is intentional. Trusting client-supplied identity for authorization is "asking the attacker if they're an admin" — Supabase's RLS history names the same footgun. The chokepoint lives in `authorize_request` in `crates/omnigraph-server/src/lib.rs` and is named in `docs/dev/invariants.md` Hard Invariant 11. A regression test asserts the contract: a request with `Authorization: Bearer <token-for-actor-A>` plus `X-Actor-Id: actor-B` always evaluates as actor A, never as actor B.
If you find yourself wanting to let clients override `actor_id` for impersonation, delegation, or service-account flows — that's a feature, but it needs explicit design (e.g., signed delegation claims, an `On-Behalf-Of` audit trail). It is not a convenience knob.