The root blocker (issue #14). The worker bound the provider allocation
and stopped. Service.PublishRoster and store.SaveVerifiedAssignmentRoster
both existed, fully tested, with zero non-test callers, and the
production allocator configured neither a roster store nor a signing
key. Nothing ever wrote the assignments table.
The allocated supervisor fetches a non-empty roster before it launches
the game child, so every real allocation failed at that fetch: no match
could reach ASSIGNMENT_READY or accept a player. Existing tests seeded
assignments directly, which is exactly why the missing hand-off went
unnoticed.
The worker now builds one join authorisation per durable participant,
signs each with the active key, and publishes them. Participants are
read through the same query SaveVerifiedAssignmentRoster re-validates
against, so the allocator cannot construct a roster the persistence
boundary would reject. The manifest commits to a digest over the whole
roster, so a server cannot be handed a truncated roster whose surviving
entries are each individually valid.
Persist the provider endpoint on the allocation: it arrived on the
provider response and was never stored, so a worker crashing between
allocating and publishing had no endpoint to recover and would have
stranded the match permanently. Republishing is idempotent, so that
crash now simply retries.
cmd/allocator refuses to start without key material rather than running
an allocator that binds allocations and silently strands every match.
The k8s allocator Deployment mounts the same key set the Fleet does, and
both now take the JSON key map so a rotation can publish several.
New integration test drives the real worker through to the supervisor's
own roster read path without seeding the assignments table. Verified it
fails with "assignments = 0, want 2" when the publish step is removed.
Prerequisite for wiring the allocator to publish rosters. The signing
key is a shared HMAC secret mounted into both the allocator and the
allocated game server; without a key ID, rotating it would invalidate
every authorisation already issued for an in-flight match, because a
server holding only the new key cannot verify a token signed with the
old one.
Add KeyID to JoinAuthorisation and append it to the canonical claim
bytes, so it is covered by the signature and cannot be repointed at a
different key than the one that actually signed. Allocated servers now
hold a set of currently-valid keys and select by ID: a rotation
publishes the new key alongside the old, and the old is dropped once no
live match can still reference it.
The key file becomes a JSON map of key ID to base64 key. A file of raw
key bytes is still accepted as a single key under the empty ID, which is
what an unrotated deployment and the kind fixture use.
Game/scripts/match_net.gd builds the canonical bytes independently, so
it changes in lockstep; the cross-language golden token in
test_match_net.gd is regenerated from the Go implementation and now
carries a key ID. Added tests cover accepting either key mid-rotation,
rejecting a retired key ID, and rejecting a token whose key ID was
swapped to name a key the server does hold.
Go suite and 223 Godot tests pass.
banned_until and ban_reason have been in the schema since 0001, but no
production query ever read them -- grepping the tree found no reference
outside the migration itself. The only ban check was an in-memory map on
domain.TicketVerifier used by domain tests. Once real Steam login is
wired, a banned identity would keep full access through every existing
session until expiry and could obtain new ones.
Make the ban part of the durable authentication transaction rather than
a policy each login adapter must remember to re-implement:
- Session issuance inserts only when the identity exists and has no
active ban, so a banned player cannot mint a session.
- Authentication joins the identity and rejects an active ban on every
request, so a ban takes effect immediately on every replica rather
than at session expiry.
- ApplyIdentityBan sets the ban and revokes that identity's sessions in
one serializable transaction, closing the window where the ban is
durable but another replica still accepts an issued session.
Bans are time-bounded and clearing one does not resurrect sessions the
ban revoked.
Tests cover enforcement across two independently constructed stores
standing in for two replicas, expiry/unban semantics, and -- separately,
because revocation would otherwise mask it -- that a ban applied without
revoking anything still blocks the next request.
Josh Creek