This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 26, 2024. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Support OIDC backchannel logouts #11414
Support OIDC backchannel logouts #11414
Changes from 11 commits
49fe26e
a0bb53d
a5d74fa
51f3cd8
1fd3658
17580ae
42df126
55076e1
eb7537a
d19bc83
0f22917
99f58d0
48777f3
e3c2db6
9cc5d40
c0b4986
6deef8d
e0748f6
626d778
8d32796
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It makes me slightly sad to add another configuration option here, but I don't think there's much we can do here to avoid it?
The metadata seems to include whether this feature is supported or not. Can we auto-enable it in those cases?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I mean, we could probably completely skip the configuration parameter. The only real benefit right now are warnings when the config enables backchannel logouts, but the OP does not advertise proper support.
Right now the behaviour is to delete the device, which does a "hard" logout. From a client perspective, it means it won't keep E2EE data, so you can't get back the deleted device. Maybe that's not the right behaviour, maybe that should be configurable.
Would it make sense to have instead a config parameter
backchannel_logout_behaviour
with the following values:logout
(the default),soft_logout
,nothing
, and maybe implementsoft_logout
/other behaviours later?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think doing a hard logout makes sense, actually. It likely makes more sense to do a soft-logout? I'm not really sure what a backchannel-logout is supposed to represent, but logging out of the IdP causing Synapse to destroy a session, causing a user to lose decryption keys sounds not great.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I haven't really found a good way to soft-logout a user :(
It looks like soft-logouts are only sent when the token expired.
I agree, but on the other hand leaving 'dead' devices on the account doesn't seem great either. Would you be fine with leaving this behaviour for now, see how it feels with whatever customer is asking for this change, and iterate on it later if it makes more sense to do a soft-logout?