-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add getRequest method to RequestFacade, to get the wrapped Request #399
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@arjantijms why not using a valve as most integrators? |
You can't add a valve from your war, so that puts additional constraints on the user. For a simple integration with Jakarta Security, not much is needed really, I only need to obtain the It's much easier to just include (say) Soteria in your war as a dependency, than it is to instruct the user to modify an existing Tomcat installation every time. That said, for tighter integration, I need to go the Valve way and specifically install a custom Realm. For the general utility of this PR, I think it's always a good idea to be able to access the object you're wrapping. Many other wrapper types have this in Tomcat, and all Servlet wrappers have this too. |
@arjantijms I see, my point is that the facade is about preventing the user to access the internals (request here) or any API not from the spec so I don't think it should be broken. It is done for all servlet code (look for all *Facade instances) and it generally prevents to access any internal from a spec code (you see it the other way for your case but it is designed the other way). I see a few options to help - there are probably more:
|
Valves can be installed via a WAR. You can specify an application specific Valve in a META-INF/context.xml file included in the WAR. |
I'll investigate the application specific Valve. Can META-INF/context.xml exist on the class path as well, or does it have to be inside [war root]/META-INF?
I'm now using reflection indeed: private static Subject getSubject(HttpServletRequest httpServletRequest) {
return (Subject) getRequest(httpServletRequest).getNote(REQ_JASPIC_SUBJECT_NOTE);
}
private static Request getRequest(HttpServletRequest servletRequest) {
return getRequest((RequestFacade) servletRequest);
}
private static Request getRequest(RequestFacade facade) {
try {
Field requestField = RequestFacade.class.getDeclaredField("request");
requestField.setAccessible(true);
return (Request) requestField.get(facade);
} catch (NoSuchFieldException | SecurityException | IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
}
} @markt-asf I'm working on a standalone implementation of Jakarta Authorization (JACC), and so far it works really well on Tomcat (and Piranha). It's actually interesting to see how the JACC way to match URL patterns and the Tomcat native way are really not that different. |
Isn't the facade intended as a service to the user to not accidentally access specifics? It's not a protection mechanism, is it? As with reflection one can get to the wrapped instance anyway. With a |
Guess a sane EE way to solve that is to propose to servlet spec to add an unwrap(Class type) method in most of its objects (or Unwrappable instance). |
In what cases doesn't it work?
Might not be a bad idea, thanks! |
@arjantijms when you can't cast the request because a filter/valve wrapped it (even if a bit nasty for valves it can happen) which is not uncommon for session distribution, security (potentially ran before jaspic) or framework (cdi for ex) setup. I know we are all tempated to say security first but actually it is common to put distribution and framework before just to ensure security context exists properly. |
@rmannibucau oh yeah, of course, then it won't work. It'll throw an exception, so at least you know it won't work ;)
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
private <T extends ServletRequest> T unwrapFully(ServletRequest request) {
ServletRequest currentRequest = request;
while (currentRequest instanceof ServletRequestWrapper) {
ServletRequestWrapper wrapper = (ServletRequestWrapper) currentRequest;
currentRequest = wrapper.getRequest();
}
return (T) currentRequest;
} Thanks! |
@arjantijms maybe test the type and throw an exception with the request type when it is not a wrapper, some people do it 👼 ;) |
@markt-asf can we add a org.apache.catalina.api.Unwrappable and make the facade objects impl it? Would it be an option? |
The plan was to keep the Servlet container implementation classes away from the webapps, so this is a request to do the opposite. It's hard to see how this concept can ever be a good idea. |
I personally think it's a brilliant idea. Then again, I'm probably biased ;) |
@rmaucher it is not about letting a webapp use internal and by default I agree it should stick to the spec API, but it is common to need to go further, in particular when combining some servlet with valves or realms, and in this case being able to link both is important and can need the request access (even potentially the coyote one!). Enabling it by allowing to cast to "unwrappable" is good enough IMHO. In any case it is not worse than today in terms of access since today you can do it using reflection, it is just about making it more fluent for end users IMO. In TomEE we do it in several places and even unwrap the request until the context, having an unwrappable would make it smoother for ex, without breaking the facade concept at all. Only constraint is to not add to facade API any method out of the spec but another interface implemented by the same object does not violate this rule. |
I would be against exposing container internals via the Servlet API as it undermines portability. What information, specifically, do you need to access and how (read, write)? I think I'd rather a solution that provided the specific access required. An added complication is that Tomcat has always aimed to support the use case of running "untrusted" apps. As such providing all apps with write access to anything considered security sensitive is going to be tricky and would probably require an configuration option to explicitly enable it. |
@markt-asf requests notes. How adding RequestFacade implements HttpServletRequest, Unwrappable is less secure than current impl? if it helps I guess you can use the security manager if set un unwrap(), would be 1-1 in terms of security with current state where using reflection falls in the same bucket, no? |
@markt-asf If you really want to encourage this, there is the privileged flag on the Context that allows using container servlets. |
Well, actually it could be used by integration libraries to improve portability, the exact opposite. Integration libraries enumerate all known implementations, adapting the internals of each to some common functionality. As an example, look at how Soteria is able to implement an SPI for Weld: It allows to get the Weld specific BeanManager from the spec compliant BeanManager: BeanManagerProxy.unwrap(beanManager)); Another example, using enumeration of known implementations: It uses reflection, but you may get the idea. Without using reflecting and specifically for Tomcat: It now only has Tomcat, but I'm planning to add Jetty there later. The internal APIs are kinda used for essentially a polyfill. |
Yet another example, Weld is using similar tricks to integrate with Tomcat: // Hack into Tomcat to replace the InstanceManager using
// reflection to access private fields
ApplicationContext appContext = (ApplicationContext) getContextFieldValue((ApplicationContextFacade) context, ApplicationContextFacade.class); It's not the average application that needs this, but libs like Weld (CDI) or Soteria (Jakarta Security) definitely have a need for this. |
For consistency with Request, and practically for external code that needs to integrate with Tomcat and e.g. needs access to the notes.
Signed-off-by: arjantijms [email protected]