Skip to content
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

grpc: add a call option to override the :authority header on a per-RPC basis #5361

Open
5 tasks
easwars opened this issue May 16, 2022 · 3 comments
Open
5 tasks
Labels
P2 Type: Feature New features or improvements in behavior

Comments

@easwars
Copy link
Contributor

easwars commented May 16, 2022

This is one of the items mentioned in #4717 which did not get done. The below description has been copied over verbatim from #4717. This is low priority and we want to implement this only if there is sufficient interest for it.

  • Add a call option to override the :authority header on a per-RPC basis. client: Add CallOption for setting authority; allow even without WithInsecure #3444
    • An optional interface will be added, to be implemented by AuthInfo implementations, to validate this override.
      • Implementations will need to perform a hostname validation check on the peer certificate, received during the handshake, to validate this override.
      • RPCs will fail if this call option is set, but:
        • AuthInfo for the subChannel does not implement this interface
        • validation by AuthInfo fails
    • Existing TLS based credentials implementations will be enhanced to support this.
    • Existing xDS credentials implementation will be enhanced to support this.
      • Use list of SANs provided by management server to validate.
    • Insecure credentials will allow for any authority value.
@110y
Copy link

110y commented Nov 10, 2022

@easwars

I created a PR that adds a new CallOption for setting :authority per RPC: #5787
Could you please check this PR...?

@JaydenTeoh
Copy link
Contributor

@easwars @ginayeh Happy to work on this issue if this is still of priority. If so, can I have some pointers on where to start next? I would also appreciate some clarity on what needs to be done. Thank you!

@arvindbr8
Copy link
Member

Thanks for your interest @JaydenTeoh.
IMO, this issue requires some more clarification and might be easier for someone internal to pick this up. Sorry for the mislabel.

If you are still interested, please look for other issues marked "Status: Help Wanted" or "Hacktoberfest".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
P2 Type: Feature New features or improvements in behavior
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants