glm-5.1
68d27c4789
Analyzed 29 findings from the implementation review (002-implementation-review.md) and identified 8 architecture-level concerns requiring spec changes: Architecture gaps addressed: - C2: Added acme_contact field to config.md, tls.md, and operations.md. Let's Encrypt requires a contact email for production; the spec was missing this required field. - C4: Added StaticConfig drift tracking requirement to config.md reload section. ConfigReloadHandle must update its stored StaticConfig after each successful reload to prevent stale warnings. - W1: Updated shutdown sequence in operations.md to specify that server tasks should be joined (not aborted) during the drain window. - W5: Added health check path collision note to proxy.md. - W13: Clarified that access logging is always-on in operations.md. - W14: Updated X-Forwarded-Proto description in proxy.md to clarify that it is always 'https' since the HTTP listener redirects rather than proxies. New open questions added: - OQ-08: Should /health use a less common path to avoid upstream collision? - OQ-09: How should upstream_connect_timeout_secs be enforced? - OQ-10: Should ACME contact email be a required config field? - OQ-11: How should X-Forwarded-Proto be derived per-listener? - OQ-12: Should request access logging be mandatory or optional? The remaining 21 findings are implementation-level bugs, code quality issues, or Phase 2 improvements that don't require architecture spec changes.
83 lines
5.0 KiB
Markdown
83 lines
5.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
status: draft
|
|
last_updated: 2026-06-11
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Reverse Proxy — Architecture
|
|
|
|
## Current State
|
|
|
|
**Phase 0 (Exploration) — Complete.** Phase 1 (Architecture) — In progress.
|
|
|
|
This project replaces our vulnerable nginx 1.24.0 installation with a
|
|
memory-safe Rust/axum reverse proxy. The primary motivation is CVE-2026-42945
|
|
(unauthenticated RCE in nginx's rewrite module) and the broader pattern of
|
|
memory corruption bugs in nginx's C codebase.
|
|
|
|
The proxy supports multiple domains from initial release (git.alk.dev and
|
|
alk.dev), with per-domain host-based routing and a single multi-domain SAN
|
|
certificate via ACME.
|
|
|
|
## Architecture Documents
|
|
|
|
| Document | Status | Description |
|
|
|----------|--------|-------------|
|
|
| [overview.md](overview.md) | Draft | Vision, scope, crate dependencies, exports |
|
|
| [proxy.md](proxy.md) | Draft | Reverse proxy handler, request flow, header injection |
|
|
| [tls.md](tls.md) | Draft | TLS termination, ACME, manual certs, SNI |
|
|
| [config.md](config.md) | Draft | TOML config format, static/dynamic split, ArcSwap reload |
|
|
| [operations.md](operations.md) | Draft | Rate limiting, logging, health check, systemd, shutdown |
|
|
|
|
## ADR Table
|
|
|
|
| ADR | Title | Status |
|
|
|-----|-------|--------|
|
|
| [001](decisions/001-rust-axum.md) | Rust with Axum | Accepted |
|
|
| [002](decisions/002-custom-proxy-handler.md) | Custom Proxy Handler | Accepted |
|
|
| [003](decisions/003-toml-config.md) | TOML Configuration Format | Accepted |
|
|
| [004](decisions/004-rustls-acme.md) | ACME-Primary Certificate Management | Accepted |
|
|
| [005](decisions/005-tokio-rustls-direct.md) | tokio-rustls Directly, Not axum-server | Accepted |
|
|
| [006](decisions/006-rate-limiting-approach.md) | Token Bucket Rate Limiting | Accepted |
|
|
| [007](decisions/007-custom-log-format.md) | Custom Structured Log Format | Accepted |
|
|
| [008](decisions/008-static-dynamic-config-split.md) | Static/Dynamic Config Split with ArcSwap | Accepted |
|
|
| [009](decisions/009-signal-handling.md) | Signal Handling Strategy | Accepted |
|
|
| [010](decisions/010-multi-site-phase1.md) | Multi-Site Support in Phase 1 | Accepted |
|
|
| [011](decisions/011-multi-domain-tls.md) | Multi-Domain TLS Configuration | Accepted |
|
|
| [012](decisions/012-cipher-suite-restriction.md) | Restrict Cipher Suites to nginx Scope | Accepted |
|
|
| [013](decisions/013-health-check-port.md) | Health Check on Separate Local Port | Accepted |
|
|
| [014](decisions/014-unix-socket-reload.md) | Unix Domain Socket Config Reload API | Accepted |
|
|
| [015](decisions/015-per-site-timeouts.md) | Per-Site Upstream Timeouts with Defaults | Accepted |
|
|
| [016](decisions/016-explicit-bind-address.md) | Explicit Bind Address Requirement | Accepted |
|
|
| [017](decisions/017-upstream-connection-defaults.md) | Upstream Connection Defaults | Accepted |
|
|
| [018](decisions/018-body-size-limit.md) | Request Body Size Limit | Accepted |
|
|
| [019](decisions/019-multi-config-listeners.md) | Multi-Config Listener Support | Accepted |
|
|
| [020](decisions/020-container-deployment.md) | Container Deployment Model | Accepted |
|
|
| [021](decisions/021-x-forwarded-for-edge-proxy.md) | X-Forwarded-For Edge Proxy Model | Accepted |
|
|
|
|
## Open Questions
|
|
|
|
See [open-questions.md](open-questions.md) for the full tracker.
|
|
|
|
| OQ | Question | Priority | Status |
|
|
|----|----------|----------|--------|
|
|
| ~~OQ-01~~ | ~~Should cipher suites be restricted beyond rustls defaults?~~ | ~~medium~~ | **resolved** (ADR-012) |
|
|
| ~~OQ-02~~ | ~~What log format should fail2ban consume?~~ | ~~high~~ | **resolved** (ADR-007) |
|
|
| ~~OQ-03~~ | ~~Should the health check endpoint be on a separate port?~~ | ~~low~~ | **resolved** (ADR-013) |
|
|
| ~~OQ-04~~ | ~~Config reload: SIGHUP only or also Unix socket API?~~ | ~~low~~ | **resolved** (ADR-014) |
|
|
| ~~OQ-05~~ | ~~Should the proxy bind to multiple addresses?~~ | ~~low~~ | **resolved** (single bind_addr sufficient) |
|
|
| ~~OQ-06~~ | ~~Should upstream timeouts be configurable per-site?~~ | ~~low~~ | **resolved** (ADR-015) |
|
|
| ~~OQ-07~~ | ~~Should per-site TLS overrides be supported for mixed ACME/manual domains?~~ | ~~low~~ | **resolved** (ADR-019) |
|
|
| OQ-08 | Should the `/health` path use a less common endpoint to avoid upstream collision? | medium | open |
|
|
| OQ-09 | How should `upstream_connect_timeout_secs` be enforced? | medium | open |
|
|
| OQ-10 | Should ACME contact email be a required config field? | high | open |
|
|
| OQ-11 | How should `X-Forwarded-Proto` be derived per-listener? | medium | open |
|
|
| OQ-12 | Should request access logging be mandatory or optional? | high | open |
|
|
|
|
## Document Lifecycle
|
|
|
|
| Status | Meaning | Transitions |
|
|
|--------|---------|-------------|
|
|
| `draft` | Under active development. May change significantly. | → `reviewed` when open questions are resolved |
|
|
| `reviewed` | Architecture is final. Implementation may begin. Changes require review. | → `stable` when implementation is complete |
|
|
| `stable` | Locked. Changes require review and may warrant an ADR. | → `deprecated` when superseded |
|
|
| `deprecated` | Superseded. Kept for reference. | Removed when no longer referenced | |