feat: Add support for X-Sentry-forwarded-for header #2572
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jjbayer
approved these changes
Oct 6, 2023
jan-auer
requested changes
Oct 6, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code change looks good. I would just like this question addressed before moving ahead.
|
Alright I think we're going to move forward as was outlined by Anton in the JIRA ticket, implemented here https://github.com/getsentry/ops/pull/8175. @jan-auer sounds good to you? |
AbhiPrasad
force-pushed
the
abhi-sentry-forwarded-header
branch
from
0d3b4df to
c2a1d51
Compare
jan-auer
approved these changes
Oct 18, 2023
Dav1dde
reviewed
Oct 18, 2023
|
|
||
| /// We prefer the Vercel header because the normal one could get overwritten as explained here. | ||
| /// `https://vercel.com/docs/concepts/edge-network/headers#x-vercel-forwarded-for` | ||
| fn get_forwarded_for_ip(header_map: &HeaderMap) -> &str { | ||
| header_map | ||
| .get(Self::VERCEL_FORWARDED_HEADER) | ||
| .or_else(|| header_map.get(Self::SENTRY_FORWARDED_HEADER)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The question came up if we should value our own header over the vercel header, the conclusion was:
- our infrastructure requires the "standard" x-forwarded-for to be trusted, so it puts the contents of just that header into the sentry version.
- at the same time, x-vercel-forwarded-for is the more accurate header overall if it is there. so it should be preferred over the other two.
Can you add an explanation to comment, so somebody in the future knows why the sentry header is not the highest priority (like there is already an explanation why the vercel header is preferred over the standard X-Forwarded-For header)?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
ref https://getsentry.atlassian.net/browse/OPS-3823
ref #2450
For users who use a SDK tunnel or proxy to route SDK events to Sentry, they often use the x-forwarded-for or x-vercel-forwarded-for to pass along the real client IP address to Sentry (so it can be stored with the Sentry event).
Current this doesn't work for SaaS Sentry because of restrictions we've placed on the infrastructure side.
This PR adds support for reading fromX-Sentry-Forwarded-Forheader. It is slightly worse that this is a proprietary header, but it unblocks this for our customers without having to suffer the same challenges x-forwarded-for does.With https://github.com/getsentry/ops/pull/8175 we're making changes to the infra to map the value in
X-Forwarded-FortoX-Sentry-Forwarded-Forwhen the request gets forwarded from nginix to relay. This helps reduce the security concerns from blindly forwardingX-Forwarded-For, and preserves existing usage ofX-Forwarded-For. In addition, self-hosted and local relay usage can still useX-Forwarded-Foras usual.