|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
title: "Server-Server API"
|
|
|
|
weight: 20
|
|
|
|
type: docs
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matrix homeservers use the Federation APIs (also known as server-server
|
|
|
|
APIs) to communicate with each other. Homeservers use these APIs to push
|
|
|
|
messages to each other in real-time, to retrieve historic messages from
|
|
|
|
each other, and to query profile and presence information about users on
|
|
|
|
each other's servers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The APIs are implemented using HTTPS requests between each of the
|
|
|
|
servers. These HTTPS requests are strongly authenticated using public
|
|
|
|
key signatures at the TLS transport layer and using public key
|
|
|
|
signatures in HTTP Authorization headers at the HTTP layer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are three main kinds of communication that occur between
|
|
|
|
homeservers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Persistent Data Units (PDUs):
|
|
|
|
These events are broadcast from one homeserver to any others that have
|
|
|
|
joined the same room (identified by Room ID). They are persisted in
|
|
|
|
long-term storage and record the history of messages and state for a
|
|
|
|
room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like email, it is the responsibility of the originating server of a PDU
|
|
|
|
to deliver that event to its recipient servers. However PDUs are signed
|
|
|
|
using the originating server's private key so that it is possible to
|
|
|
|
deliver them through third-party servers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ephemeral Data Units (EDUs):
|
|
|
|
These events are pushed between pairs of homeservers. They are not
|
|
|
|
persisted and are not part of the history of a room, nor does the
|
|
|
|
receiving homeserver have to reply to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Queries:
|
|
|
|
These are single request/response interactions between a given pair of
|
|
|
|
servers, initiated by one side sending an HTTPS GET request to obtain
|
|
|
|
some information, and responded by the other. They are not persisted and
|
|
|
|
contain no long-term significant history. They simply request a snapshot
|
|
|
|
state at the instant the query is made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EDUs and PDUs are further wrapped in an envelope called a Transaction,
|
|
|
|
which is transferred from the origin to the destination homeserver using
|
|
|
|
an HTTPS PUT request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## API standards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mandatory baseline for server-server communication in Matrix is
|
|
|
|
exchanging JSON objects over HTTPS APIs. More efficient transports may be
|
|
|
|
specified in future as optional extensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All `POST` and `PUT` endpoints require the requesting server to supply a
|
|
|
|
request body containing a (potentially empty) JSON object. Requesting servers
|
|
|
|
should supply a `Content-Type` header of `application/json` for all requests
|
|
|
|
with JSON bodies, but this is not required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly, all endpoints in this specification require the destination server
|
|
|
|
to return a JSON object. Servers must include a `Content-Type` header of
|
|
|
|
`application/json` for all JSON responses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All JSON data, in requests or responses, must be encoded using UTF-8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### TLS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Server-server communication must take place over HTTPS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The destination server must provide a TLS certificate signed by a known
|
|
|
|
Certificate Authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Requesting servers are ultimately responsible for determining the trusted Certificate
|
|
|
|
Authorities, however are strongly encouraged to rely on the operating system's
|
|
|
|
judgement. Servers can offer administrators a means to override the trusted
|
|
|
|
authorities list. Servers can additionally skip the certificate validation for
|
|
|
|
a given whitelist of domains or netmasks for the purposes of testing or in
|
|
|
|
networks where verification is done elsewhere, such as with `.onion`
|
|
|
|
addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Servers should respect SNI when making requests where possible: a SNI should be
|
|
|
|
sent for the certificate which is expected, unless that certificate is expected
|
|
|
|
to be an IP address in which case SNI is not supported and should not be sent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Servers are encouraged to make use of the [Certificate
|
|
|
|
Transparency](https://www.certificate-transparency.org/) project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Unsupported endpoints
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a request for an unsupported (or unknown) endpoint is received then the server
|
|
|
|
must respond with a 404 `M_UNRECOGNIZED` error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly, a 405 `M_UNRECOGNIZED` error is used to denote an unsupported method
|
|
|
|
to a known endpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Server discovery
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Resolving server names
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each Matrix homeserver is identified by a server name consisting of a
|
|
|
|
hostname and an optional port, as described by the
|
|
|
|
[grammar](/appendices#server-name). Where applicable, a delegated
|
|
|
|
server name uses the same grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Server names are resolved to an IP address and port to connect to, and
|
|
|
|
have various conditions affecting which certificates and `Host` headers
|
|
|
|
to send. The process overall is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. If the hostname is an IP literal, then that IP address should be
|
|
|
|
used, together with the given port number, or 8448 if no port is
|
|
|
|
given. The target server must present a valid certificate for the IP
|
|
|
|
address. The `Host` header in the request should be set to the
|
|
|
|
server name, including the port if the server name included one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. If the hostname is not an IP literal, and the server name includes an
|
|
|
|
explicit port, resolve the hostname to an IP address using CNAME, AAAA or A
|
|
|
|
records.
|
|
|
|
Requests are made to the resolved IP address and given port with a
|
|
|
|
`Host` header of the original server name (with port). The target
|
|
|
|
server must present a valid certificate for the hostname.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. If the hostname is not an IP literal, a regular HTTPS request is
|
|
|
|
made to `https://<hostname>/.well-known/matrix/server`, expecting
|
|
|
|
the schema defined later in this section. 30x redirects should be
|
|
|
|
followed, however redirection loops should be avoided. Responses
|
|
|
|
(successful or otherwise) to the `/.well-known` endpoint should be
|
|
|
|
cached by the requesting server. Servers should respect the cache
|
|
|
|
control headers present on the response, or use a sensible default
|
|
|
|
when headers are not present. The recommended sensible default is 24
|
|
|
|
hours. Servers should additionally impose a maximum cache time for
|
|
|
|
responses: 48 hours is recommended. Errors are recommended to be
|
|
|
|
cached for up to an hour, and servers are encouraged to
|
|
|
|
exponentially back off for repeated failures. The schema of the
|
|
|
|
`/.well-known` request is later in this section. If the response is
|
|
|
|
invalid (bad JSON, missing properties, non-200 response, etc), skip
|
|
|
|
to step 4. If the response is valid, the `m.server` property is
|
|
|
|
parsed as `<delegated_hostname>[:<delegated_port>]` and processed as
|
|
|
|
follows:
|
|
|
|
- If `<delegated_hostname>` is an IP literal, then that IP address
|
|
|
|
should be used together with the `<delegated_port>` or 8448 if
|
|
|
|
no port is provided. The target server must present a valid TLS
|
|
|
|
certificate for the IP address. Requests must be made with a
|
|
|
|
`Host` header containing the IP address, including the port if
|
|
|
|
one was provided.
|
|
|
|
- If `<delegated_hostname>` is not an IP literal, and
|
|
|
|
`<delegated_port>` is present, an IP address is discovered by
|
|
|
|
looking up CNAME, AAAA or A records for `<delegated_hostname>`. The
|
|
|
|
resulting IP address is used, alongside the `<delegated_port>`.
|
|
|
|
Requests must be made with a `Host` header of
|
|
|
|
`<delegated_hostname>:<delegated_port>`. The target server must
|
|
|
|
present a valid certificate for `<delegated_hostname>`.
|
|
|
|
- If `<delegated_hostname>` is not an IP literal and no
|
|
|
|
`<delegated_port>` is present, an SRV record is looked up for
|
|
|
|
`_matrix._tcp.<delegated_hostname>`. This may result in another
|
|
|
|
hostname (to be resolved using AAAA or A records) and port.
|
|
|
|
Requests should be made to the resolved IP address and port with
|
|
|
|
a `Host` header containing the `<delegated_hostname>`. The
|
|
|
|
target server must present a valid certificate for
|
|
|
|
`<delegated_hostname>`.
|
|
|
|
- If no SRV record is found, an IP address is resolved using CNAME, AAAA
|
|
|
|
or A records. Requests are then made to the resolve IP address
|
|
|
|
and a port of 8448, using a `Host` header of
|
|
|
|
`<delegated_hostname>`. The target server must present a valid
|
|
|
|
certificate for `<delegated_hostname>`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. If the `/.well-known` request resulted in an error response, a
|
|
|
|
server is found by resolving an SRV record for
|
|
|
|
`_matrix._tcp.<hostname>`. This may result in a hostname (to be
|
|
|
|
resolved using AAAA or A records) and port. Requests are made to the
|
|
|
|
resolved IP address and port, using 8448 as a default port, with a
|
|
|
|
`Host` header of `<hostname>`. The target server must present a
|
|
|
|
valid certificate for `<hostname>`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. If the `/.well-known` request returned an error response, and the
|
|
|
|
SRV record was not found, an IP address is resolved using CNAME, AAAA and A
|
|
|
|
records. Requests are made to the resolved IP address using port
|
|
|
|
8448 and a `Host` header containing the `<hostname>`. The target
|
|
|
|
server must present a valid certificate for `<hostname>`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
The reasons we require `<hostname>` rather than `<delegated_hostname>` for SRV
|
|
|
|
delegation are:
|
|
|
|
1. DNS is insecure (not all domains have DNSSEC), so the target of the delegation
|
|
|
|
must prove that it is a valid delegate for `<hostname>` via TLS.
|
|
|
|
2. Consistency with the recommendations in [RFC6125](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6125#section-6.2.1)
|
|
|
|
and other applications using SRV records such [XMPP](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6120#section-13.7.2.1).
|
|
|
|
{{% /boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
Note that the target of a SRV record may *not* be a CNAME, as
|
|
|
|
mandated by [RFC2782](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2782.html):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> the name MUST NOT be an alias (in the sense of RFC 1034 or RFC 2181)
|
|
|
|
{{% /boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="wellknown" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Server implementation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="version" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Retrieving server keys
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
There was once a "version 1" of the key exchange. It has been removed
|
|
|
|
from the specification due to lack of significance. It may be reviewed
|
|
|
|
[from the historical
|
|
|
|
draft](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/51faf8ed2e4a63d4cfd6d23183698ed169956cc0/specification/server_server_api.rst#232version-1).
|
|
|
|
{{% /boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each homeserver publishes its public keys under
|
|
|
|
`/_matrix/key/v2/server`. Homeservers query for keys by either
|
|
|
|
getting `/_matrix/key/v2/server` directly or by querying an
|
|
|
|
intermediate notary server using a
|
|
|
|
`/_matrix/key/v2/query/{serverName}` API. Intermediate notary
|
|
|
|
servers query the `/_matrix/key/v2/server` API on behalf of
|
|
|
|
another server and sign the response with their own key. A server may
|
|
|
|
query multiple notary servers to ensure that they all report the same
|
|
|
|
public keys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This approach is borrowed from the [Perspectives
|
|
|
|
Project](https://web.archive.org/web/20170702024706/https://perspectives-project.org/),
|
|
|
|
but modified to include the NACL keys and to use JSON instead of XML. It
|
|
|
|
has the advantage of avoiding a single trust-root since each server is
|
|
|
|
free to pick which notary servers they trust and can corroborate the
|
|
|
|
keys returned by a given notary server by querying other servers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Publishing Keys
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Homeservers publish their signing keys in a JSON object at
|
|
|
|
`/_matrix/key/v2/server`. The response contains a list of
|
|
|
|
`verify_keys` that are valid for signing federation requests made by the
|
|
|
|
homeserver and for signing events. It contains a list of
|
|
|
|
`old_verify_keys` which are only valid for signing events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="keys_server" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Querying Keys Through Another Server
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Servers may query another server's keys through a notary server. The
|
|
|
|
notary server may be another homeserver. The notary server will retrieve
|
|
|
|
keys from the queried servers through use of the
|
|
|
|
`/_matrix/key/v2/server` API. The notary server will
|
|
|
|
additionally sign the response from the queried server before returning
|
|
|
|
the results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notary servers can return keys for servers that are offline or having
|
|
|
|
issues serving their own keys by using cached responses. Keys can be
|
|
|
|
queried from multiple servers to mitigate against DNS spoofing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="keys_query" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Authentication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Request Authentication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every HTTP request made by a homeserver is authenticated using public
|
|
|
|
key digital signatures. The request method, target and body are signed
|
|
|
|
by wrapping them in a JSON object and signing it using the JSON signing
|
|
|
|
algorithm. The resulting signatures are added as an Authorization header
|
|
|
|
with an auth scheme of `X-Matrix`. Note that the target field should
|
|
|
|
include the full path starting with `/_matrix/...`, including the `?`
|
|
|
|
and any query parameters if present, but should not include the leading
|
|
|
|
`https:`, nor the destination server's hostname.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 1 sign JSON:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
"method": "GET",
|
|
|
|
"uri": "/target",
|
|
|
|
"origin": "origin.hs.example.com",
|
|
|
|
"destination": "destination.hs.example.com",
|
|
|
|
"content": <JSON-parsed request body>,
|
|
|
|
"signatures": {
|
|
|
|
"origin.hs.example.com": {
|
|
|
|
"ed25519:key1": "ABCDEF..."
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The server names in the JSON above are the server names for each
|
|
|
|
homeserver involved. Delegation from the [server name resolution
|
|
|
|
section](#resolving-server-names) above do not affect these - the server
|
|
|
|
names from before delegation would take place are used. This same
|
|
|
|
condition applies throughout the request signing process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 2 add Authorization header:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GET /target HTTP/1.1
|
|
|
|
Authorization: X-Matrix origin="origin.hs.example.com",destination="destination.hs.example.com",key="ed25519:key1",sig="ABCDEF..."
|
|
|
|
Content-Type: application/json
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<JSON-encoded request body>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example python code:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```py
|
|
|
|
def authorization_headers(origin_name, origin_signing_key,
|
|
|
|
destination_name, request_method, request_target,
|
|
|
|
content=None):
|
|
|
|
request_json = {
|
|
|
|
"method": request_method,
|
|
|
|
"uri": request_target,
|
|
|
|
"origin": origin_name,
|
|
|
|
"destination": destination_name,
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if content is not None:
|
|
|
|
# Assuming content is already parsed as JSON
|
|
|
|
request_json["content"] = content
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
signed_json = sign_json(request_json, origin_name, origin_signing_key)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
authorization_headers = []
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for key, sig in signed_json["signatures"][origin_name].items():
|
|
|
|
authorization_headers.append(bytes(
|
|
|
|
"X-Matrix origin=\"%s\",destination=\"%s\",key=\"%s\",sig=\"%s\"" % (
|
|
|
|
origin_name, destination_name, key, sig,
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return ("Authorization", authorization_headers[0])
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The format of the Authorization header is given in
|
|
|
|
[RFC 7235](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7235#section-2.1). In
|
|
|
|
summary, the header begins with authorization scheme `X-Matrix`, followed by
|
|
|
|
one or more spaces, followed by a comma-separated list of parameters written as
|
|
|
|
name=value pairs. The names are case insensitive and order does not matter. The
|
|
|
|
values must be enclosed in quotes if they contain characters that are not
|
|
|
|
allowed in `token`s, as defined in
|
|
|
|
[RFC 7230](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7230#section-3.2.6); if a
|
|
|
|
value is a valid `token`, it may or may not be enclosed in quotes. Quoted
|
|
|
|
values may include backslash-escaped characters. When parsing the header, the
|
|
|
|
recipient must unescape the characters. That is, a backslash-character pair is
|
|
|
|
replaced by the character that follows the backslash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For compatibility with older servers, the sender should
|
|
|
|
- only include one space after `X-Matrix`,
|
|
|
|
- only use lower-case names, and
|
|
|
|
- avoid using backslashes in parameter values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For compatibility with older servers, the recipient should allow colons to be
|
|
|
|
included in values without requiring the value to be enclosed in quotes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The authorization parameters to include are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `origin`: the server name of the sending server. This is the same as the
|
|
|
|
`origin` field from JSON described in step 1.
|
|
|
|
- `destination`: {{< added-in v="1.3" >}} the server name of the receiving
|
|
|
|
server. This is the same as the `destination` field from the JSON described
|
|
|
|
in step 1. For compatibility with older servers, recipients should accept
|
|
|
|
requests without this parameter, but MUST always send it. If this property
|
|
|
|
is included, but the value does not match the receiving server's name, the
|
|
|
|
receiving server must deny the request with an HTTP status code 401
|
|
|
|
Unauthorized.
|
|
|
|
- `key`: the ID, including the algorithm name, of the sending server's key used
|
|
|
|
to sign the request.
|
|
|
|
- `signature`: the signature of the JSON as calculated in step 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unknown parameters are ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Response Authentication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses are authenticated by the TLS server certificate. A homeserver
|
|
|
|
should not send a request until it has authenticated the connected
|
|
|
|
server to avoid leaking messages to eavesdroppers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Client TLS Certificates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Requests are authenticated at the HTTP layer rather than at the TLS
|
|
|
|
layer because HTTP services like Matrix are often deployed behind load
|
|
|
|
balancers that handle the TLS and these load balancers make it difficult
|
|
|
|
to check TLS client certificates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A homeserver may provide a TLS client certificate and the receiving
|
|
|
|
homeserver may check that the client certificate matches the certificate
|
|
|
|
of the origin homeserver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Transactions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The transfer of EDUs and PDUs between homeservers is performed by an
|
|
|
|
exchange of Transaction messages, which are encoded as JSON objects,
|
|
|
|
passed over an HTTP PUT request. A Transaction is meaningful only to the
|
|
|
|
pair of homeservers that exchanged it; they are not globally-meaningful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transactions are limited in size; they can have at most 50 PDUs and 100
|
|
|
|
EDUs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="transactions" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## PDUs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each PDU contains a single Room Event which the origin server wants to
|
|
|
|
send to the destination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `prev_events` field of a PDU identifies the "parents" of the event,
|
|
|
|
and thus establishes a partial ordering on events within the room by
|
|
|
|
linking them into a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). The sending server
|
|
|
|
should populate this field with all of the events in the room for which
|
|
|
|
it has not yet seen a child - thus demonstrating that the event comes
|
|
|
|
after all other known events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, consider a room whose events form the DAG shown below. A
|
|
|
|
server creating a new event in this room should populate the new event's
|
|
|
|
`prev_events` field with both `E4` and `E6`, since neither event yet has
|
|
|
|
a child:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E1
|
|
|
|
^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E2 <--- E5
|
|
|
|
^ ^
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
E3 E6
|
|
|
|
^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For a full schema of what a PDU looks like, see the [room version
|
|
|
|
specification](/rooms).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Checks performed on receipt of a PDU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever a server receives an event from a remote server, the receiving
|
|
|
|
server must ensure that the event:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Is a valid event, otherwise it is dropped. For an event to be valid, it
|
|
|
|
must contain a `room_id`, and it must comply with the event format of
|
|
|
|
that [room version](/rooms).
|
|
|
|
2. Passes signature checks, otherwise it is dropped.
|
|
|
|
3. Passes hash checks, otherwise it is redacted before being processed
|
|
|
|
further.
|
|
|
|
4. Passes authorization rules based on the event's auth events,
|
|
|
|
otherwise it is rejected.
|
|
|
|
5. Passes authorization rules based on the state before the event,
|
|
|
|
otherwise it is rejected.
|
|
|
|
6. Passes authorization rules based on the current state of the room,
|
|
|
|
otherwise it is "soft failed".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Further details of these checks, and how to handle failures, are
|
|
|
|
described below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The [Signing Events](#signing-events) section has more information on
|
|
|
|
which hashes and signatures are expected on events, and how to calculate
|
|
|
|
them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Definitions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Required Power Level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: A given event type has an associated *required power level*. This is given by
|
|
|
|
the current [`m.room.power_levels`](/client-server-api/#mroompower_levels)
|
|
|
|
event. The event type is either listed explicitly in the `events` section or
|
|
|
|
given by either `state_default` or `events_default` depending on if the event
|
|
|
|
is a state event or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Invite Level, Kick Level, Ban Level, Redact Level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: The levels given by the `invite`, `kick`, `ban`, and `redact` properties in
|
|
|
|
the current [`m.room.power_levels`](/client-server-api/#mroompower_levels)
|
|
|
|
state. The invite level defaults to 0 if unspecified. The kick level, ban level
|
|
|
|
and redact level each default to 50 if unspecified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Target User
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: For an [`m.room.member`](/client-server-api/#mroommember) state event, the
|
|
|
|
user given by the `state_key` of the event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% boxes/warning %}}
|
|
|
|
Some [room versions](/rooms) accept power level values to be represented as
|
|
|
|
strings rather than integers. This is strictly for backwards compatibility.
|
|
|
|
A homeserver should take reasonable precautions to prevent users from sending
|
|
|
|
new power level events with string values (eg: by rejecting the API request),
|
|
|
|
and must never populate the default power levels in a room as string values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See the [room version specification](/rooms) for more information.
|
|
|
|
{{% /boxes/warning %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Authorization rules
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rules governing whether an event is authorized depends on a set of
|
|
|
|
state. A given event is checked multiple times against different sets of
|
|
|
|
state, as specified above. Each room version can have a different
|
|
|
|
algorithm for how the rules work, and which rules are applied. For more
|
|
|
|
detailed information, please see the [room version
|
|
|
|
specification](/rooms).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Auth events selection
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `auth_events` field of a PDU identifies the set of events which give
|
|
|
|
the sender permission to send the event. The `auth_events` for the
|
|
|
|
`m.room.create` event in a room is empty; for other events, it should be
|
|
|
|
the following subset of the room state:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The `m.room.create` event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The current `m.room.power_levels` event, if any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The sender's current `m.room.member` event, if any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- If type is `m.room.member`:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The target's current `m.room.member` event, if any.
|
|
|
|
- If `membership` is `join` or `invite`, the current
|
|
|
|
`m.room.join_rules` event, if any.
|
|
|
|
- If membership is `invite` and `content` contains a
|
|
|
|
`third_party_invite` property, the current
|
|
|
|
`m.room.third_party_invite` event with `state_key` matching
|
|
|
|
`content.third_party_invite.signed.token`, if any.
|
|
|
|
- If `content.join_authorised_via_users_server` is present,
|
|
|
|
and the [room version supports restricted rooms](/rooms/#feature-matrix),
|
|
|
|
then the `m.room.member` event with `state_key` matching
|
|
|
|
`content.join_authorised_via_users_server`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Rejection
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If an event is rejected it should neither be relayed to clients nor be
|
|
|
|
included as a prev event in any new events generated by the server.
|
|
|
|
Subsequent events from other servers that reference rejected events
|
|
|
|
should be allowed if they still pass the auth rules. The state used in
|
|
|
|
the checks should be calculated as normal, except not updating with the
|
|
|
|
rejected event where it is a state event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If an event in an incoming transaction is rejected, this should not
|
|
|
|
cause the transaction request to be responded to with an error response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
This means that events may be included in the room DAG even though they
|
|
|
|
should be rejected.
|
|
|
|
{{% /boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
This is in contrast to redacted events which can still affect the state
|
|
|
|
of the room. For example, a redacted `join` event will still result in
|
|
|
|
the user being considered joined.
|
|
|
|
{{% /boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Soft failure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% boxes/rationale %}}
|
|
|
|
It is important that we prevent users from evading bans (or other power
|
|
|
|
restrictions) by creating events which reference old parts of the DAG.
|
|
|
|
For example, a banned user could continue to send messages to a room by
|
|
|
|
having their server send events which reference the event before they
|
|
|
|
were banned. Note that such events are entirely valid, and we cannot
|
|
|
|
simply reject them, as it is impossible to distinguish such an event
|
|
|
|
from a legitimate one which has been delayed. We must therefore accept
|
|
|
|
such events and let them participate in state resolution and the
|
|
|
|
federation protocol as normal. However, servers may choose not to send
|
|
|
|
such events on to their clients, so that end users won't actually see
|
|
|
|
the events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When this happens it is often fairly obvious to servers, as they can see
|
|
|
|
that the new event doesn't actually pass auth based on the "current
|
|
|
|
state" (i.e. the resolved state across all forward extremities). While
|
|
|
|
the event is technically valid, the server can choose to not notify
|
|
|
|
clients about the new event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This discourages servers from sending events that evade bans etc. in
|
|
|
|
this way, as end users won't actually see the events.
|
|
|
|
{{% /boxes/rationale %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the homeserver receives a new event over federation it should also
|
|
|
|
check whether the event passes auth checks based on the current state of
|
|
|
|
the room (as well as based on the state at the event). If the event does
|
|
|
|
not pass the auth checks based on the *current state* of the room (but
|
|
|
|
does pass the auth checks based on the state at that event) it should be
|
|
|
|
"soft failed".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When an event is "soft failed" it should not be relayed to the client
|
|
|
|
nor be referenced by new events created by the homeserver (i.e. they
|
|
|
|
should not be added to the server's list of forward extremities of the
|
|
|
|
room). Soft failed events are otherwise handled as usual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
Soft failed events participate in state resolution as normal if further
|
|
|
|
events are received which reference it. It is the job of the state
|
|
|
|
resolution algorithm to ensure that malicious events cannot be injected
|
|
|
|
into the room state via this mechanism.
|
|
|
|
{{% /boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
Because soft failed state events participate in state resolution as
|
|
|
|
normal, it is possible for such events to appear in the current state of
|
|
|
|
the room. In that case the client should be told about the soft failed
|
|
|
|
event in the usual way (e.g. by sending it down in the `state` section
|
|
|
|
of a sync response).
|
|
|
|
{{% /boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
A soft failed event should be returned in response to federation
|
|
|
|
requests where appropriate (e.g. in `/event/<event_id>`). Note that soft
|
|
|
|
failed events are returned in `/backfill` and `/get_missing_events`
|
|
|
|
responses only if the requests include events referencing the soft
|
|
|
|
failed events.
|
|
|
|
{{% /boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As an example consider the event graph:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
|
|
/
|
|
|
|
B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where `B` is a ban of a user `X`. If the user `X` tries to set the topic
|
|
|
|
by sending an event `C` while evading the ban:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
|
|
/ \
|
|
|
|
B C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
servers that receive `C` after `B` should soft fail event `C`, and so
|
|
|
|
will neither relay `C` to its clients nor send any events referencing
|
|
|
|
`C`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If later another server sends an event `D` that references both `B` and
|
|
|
|
`C` (this can happen if it received `C` before `B`):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
|
|
/ \
|
|
|
|
B C
|
|
|
|
\ /
|
|
|
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then servers will handle `D` as normal. `D` is sent to the servers'
|
|
|
|
clients (assuming `D` passes auth checks). The state at `D` may resolve
|
|
|
|
to a state that includes `C`, in which case clients should also to be
|
|
|
|
told that the state has changed to include `C`. (*Note*: This depends on
|
|
|
|
the exact state resolution algorithm used. In the original version of
|
|
|
|
the algorithm `C` would be in the resolved state, whereas in latter
|
|
|
|
versions the algorithm tries to prioritise the ban over the topic
|
|
|
|
change.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that this is essentially equivalent to the situation where one
|
|
|
|
server doesn't receive `C` at all, and so asks another server for the
|
|
|
|
state of the `C` branch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's go back to the graph before `D` was sent:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
|
|
/ \
|
|
|
|
B C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If all the servers in the room saw `B` before `C` and so soft fail `C`,
|
|
|
|
then any new event `D'` will not reference `C`:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
|
|
/ \
|
|
|
|
B C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Retrieving event authorization information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The homeserver may be missing event authorization information, or wish
|
|
|
|
to check with other servers to ensure it is receiving the correct auth
|
|
|
|
chain. These APIs give the homeserver an avenue for getting the
|
|
|
|
information it needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="event_auth" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## EDUs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EDUs, by comparison to PDUs, do not have an ID, a room ID, or a list of
|
|
|
|
"previous" IDs. They are intended to be non-persistent data such as user
|
|
|
|
presence, typing notifications, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% definition path="api/server-server/definitions/edu_with_example" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Room State Resolution
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The *state* of a room is a map of `(event_type, state_key)` to
|
|
|
|
`event_id`. Each room starts with an empty state, and each state event
|
|
|
|
which is accepted into the room updates the state of that room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where each event has a single `prev_event`, it is clear what the state
|
|
|
|
of the room after each event should be. However, when two branches in
|
|
|
|
the event graph merge, the state of those branches might differ, so a
|
|
|
|
*state resolution* algorithm must be used to determine the resultant
|
|
|
|
state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, consider the following event graph (where the oldest event,
|
|
|
|
E0, is at the top):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E1
|
|
|
|
/ \
|
|
|
|
E2 E4
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
E3 |
|
|
|
|
\ /
|
|
|
|
E5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose E3 and E4 are both `m.room.name` events which set the name of
|
|
|
|
the room. What should the name of the room be at E5?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The algorithm to be used for state resolution depends on the room
|
|
|
|
version. For a description of each room version's algorithm, please see
|
|
|
|
the [room version specification](/rooms).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Backfilling and retrieving missing events
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a homeserver has joined a room, it receives all the events emitted
|
|
|
|
by other homeservers in that room, and is thus aware of the entire
|
|
|
|
history of the room from that moment onwards. Since users in that room
|
|
|
|
are able to request the history by the `/messages` client API endpoint,
|
|
|
|
it's possible that they might step backwards far enough into history
|
|
|
|
before the homeserver itself was a member of that room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To cover this case, the federation API provides a server-to-server
|
|
|
|
analog of the `/messages` client API, allowing one homeserver to fetch
|
|
|
|
history from another. This is the `/backfill` API.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To request more history, the requesting homeserver picks another
|
|
|
|
homeserver that it thinks may have more (most likely this should be a
|
|
|
|
homeserver for some of the existing users in the room at the earliest
|
|
|
|
point in history it has currently), and makes a `/backfill` request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar to backfilling a room's history, a server may not have all the
|
|
|
|
events in the graph. That server may use the `/get_missing_events` API
|
|
|
|
to acquire the events it is missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="backfill" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Retrieving events
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In some circumstances, a homeserver may be missing a particular event or
|
|
|
|
information about the room which cannot be easily determined from
|
|
|
|
backfilling. These APIs provide homeservers with the option of getting
|
|
|
|
events and the state of the room at a given point in the timeline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="events" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Joining Rooms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a new user wishes to join a room that the user's homeserver already
|
|
|
|
knows about, the homeserver can immediately determine if this is
|
|
|
|
allowable by inspecting the state of the room. If it is acceptable, it
|
|
|
|
can generate, sign, and emit a new `m.room.member` state event adding
|
|
|
|
the user into that room. When the homeserver does not yet know about the
|
|
|
|
room it cannot do this directly. Instead, it must take a longer
|
|
|
|
multi-stage handshaking process by which it first selects a remote
|
|
|
|
homeserver which is already participating in that room, and use it to
|
|
|
|
assist in the joining process. This is the remote join handshake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This handshake involves the homeserver of the new member wishing to join
|
|
|
|
(referred to here as the "joining" server), the directory server hosting
|
|
|
|
the room alias the user is requesting to join with, and a homeserver
|
|
|
|
where existing room members are already present (referred to as the
|
|
|
|
"resident" server).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In summary, the remote join handshake consists of the joining server
|
|
|
|
querying the directory server for information about the room alias;
|
|
|
|
receiving a room ID and a list of join candidates. The joining server
|
|
|
|
then requests information about the room from one of the residents. It
|
|
|
|
uses this information to construct an `m.room.member` event which it
|
|
|
|
finally sends to a resident server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conceptually these are three different roles of homeserver. In practice
|
|
|
|
the directory server is likely to be resident in the room, and so may be
|
|
|
|
selected by the joining server to be the assisting resident. Likewise,
|
|
|
|
it is likely that the joining server picks the same candidate resident
|
|
|
|
for both phases of event construction, though in principle any valid
|
|
|
|
candidate may be used at each time. Thus, any join handshake can
|
|
|
|
potentially involve anywhere from two to four homeservers, though most
|
|
|
|
in practice will use just two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
|
|
https://textart.io/sequence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
object Client JoiningServer DirectoryServer ResidentServer
|
|
|
|
Client->JoiningServer: join request
|
|
|
|
JoiningServer->DirectoryServer: directory request
|
|
|
|
DirectoryServer->JoiningServer: directory response
|
|
|
|
JoiningServer->ResidentServer: make_join request
|
|
|
|
ResidentServer->JoiningServer: make_join response
|
|
|
|
JoiningServer->ResidentServer: send_join request
|
|
|
|
ResidentServer->JoiningServer: send_join response
|
|
|
|
JoiningServer->Client: join response
|
|
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
+---------+ +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
|
|
|
|
| Client | | JoiningServer | | DirectoryServer | | ResidentServer |
|
|
|
|
+---------+ +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
| join request | | |
|
|
|
|
|---------------------->| | |
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
| | directory request | |
|
|
|
|
| |---------------------------->| |
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
| | directory response | |
|
|
|
|
| |<----------------------------| |
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
| | make_join request | |
|
|
|
|
| |------------------------------------------------>|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
| | |make_join response |
|
|
|
|
| |<------------------------------------------------|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
| | send_join request | |
|
|
|
|
| |------------------------------------------------>|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
| | |send_join response |
|
|
|
|
| |<------------------------------------------------|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
| join response | | |
|
|
|
|
|<----------------------| | |
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first part of the handshake usually involves using the directory
|
|
|
|
server to request the room ID and join candidates through the
|
|
|
|
[`/query/directory`](/server-server-api/#get_matrixfederationv1querydirectory) API endpoint. In the case of a new user joining a
|
|
|
|
room as a result of a received invite, the joining user's homeserver
|
|
|
|
could optimise this step away by picking the origin server of that
|
|
|
|
invite message as the join candidate. However, the joining server should
|
|
|
|
be aware that the origin server of the invite might since have left the
|
|
|
|
room, so should be prepared to fall back on the regular join flow if
|
|
|
|
this optimisation fails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once the joining server has the room ID and the join candidates, it then
|
|
|
|
needs to obtain enough information about the room to fill in the
|
|
|
|
required fields of the `m.room.member` event. It obtains this by
|
|
|
|
selecting a resident from the candidate list, and using the
|
|
|
|
`GET /make_join` endpoint. The resident server will then reply with
|
|
|
|
enough information for the joining server to fill in the event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The joining server is expected to add or replace the `origin`,
|
|
|
|
`origin_server_ts`, and `event_id` on the templated event received by
|
|
|
|
the resident server. This event is then signed by the joining server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To complete the join handshake, the joining server submits this new event
|
|
|
|
to the resident server it used for `GET /make_join`, using the `PUT /send_join`
|
|
|
|
endpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The resident homeserver then adds its signature to this event and
|
|
|
|
accepts it into the room's event graph. The joining server receives
|
|
|
|
the full set of state for the newly-joined room as well as the freshly
|
|
|
|
signed membership event. The resident server must also send the event
|
|
|
|
to other servers participating in the room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="joins-v1" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="joins-v2" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Restricted rooms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted rooms are described in detail in the
|
|
|
|
[client-server API](/client-server-api/#restricted-rooms) and are available
|
|
|
|
in room versions [which support restricted join rules](/rooms/#feature-matrix).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A resident server processing a request to join a restricted room must
|
|
|
|
ensure that the joining server satisfies at least one of the conditions
|
|
|
|
specified by `m.room.join_rules`. If no conditions are available, or none
|
|
|
|
match the required schema, then the joining server is considered to have
|
|
|
|
failed all conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The resident server uses a 400 `M_UNABLE_TO_AUTHORISE_JOIN` error on
|
|
|
|
`/make_join` and `/send_join` to denote that the resident server is unable
|
|
|
|
to validate any of the conditions, usually because the resident server
|
|
|
|
does not have state information about rooms required by the conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The resident server uses a 400 `M_UNABLE_TO_GRANT_JOIN` error on `/make_join`
|
|
|
|
and `/send_join` to denote that the joining server should try a different
|
|
|
|
server. This is typically because the resident server can see that the
|
|
|
|
joining user satisfies one of the conditions, though the resident server
|
|
|
|
would be unable to meet the auth rules governing `join_authorised_via_users_server`
|
|
|
|
on the resulting `m.room.member` event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the joining server fails all conditions then a 403 `M_FORBIDDEN` error
|
|
|
|
is used by the resident server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<a name="knocking-rooms">
|
|
|
|
## Knocking upon a room
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooms can permit knocking through the join rules, and if permitted this
|
|
|
|
gives users a way to request to join (be invited) to the room. Users who
|
|
|
|
knock on a room where the server is already a resident of the room can
|
|
|
|
just send the knock event directly without using this process, however
|
|
|
|
much like [joining rooms](/server-server-api/#joining-rooms) the server
|
|
|
|
must handshake their way into having the knock sent on its behalf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The handshake is largely the same as the joining rooms handshake, where
|
|
|
|
instead of a "joining server" there is a "knocking server", and the APIs
|
|
|
|
to be called are different (`/make_knock` and `/send_knock`).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Servers can retract knocks over federation by leaving the room, as described
|
|
|
|
below for rejecting invites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="knocks" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Inviting to a room
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a user on a given homeserver invites another user on the same
|
|
|
|
homeserver, the homeserver may sign the membership event itself and skip
|
|
|
|
the process defined here. However, when a user invites another user on a
|
|
|
|
different homeserver, a request to that homeserver to have the event
|
|
|
|
signed and verified must be made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that invites are used to indicate that knocks were accepted. As such,
|
|
|
|
receiving servers should be prepared to manually link up a previous knock
|
|
|
|
to an invite if the invite event does not directly reference the knock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="invites-v1" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="invites-v2" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Leaving Rooms (Rejecting Invites)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Normally homeservers can send appropriate `m.room.member` events to have
|
|
|
|
users leave the room, to reject local invites, or to retract a knock.
|
|
|
|
Remote invites/knocks from other homeservers do not involve the server in the
|
|
|
|
graph and therefore need another approach to reject the invite. Joining
|
|
|
|
the room and promptly leaving is not recommended as clients and servers will
|
|
|
|
interpret that as accepting the invite, then leaving the room rather
|
|
|
|
than rejecting the invite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar to the [Joining Rooms](#joining-rooms) handshake, the server
|
|
|
|
which wishes to leave the room starts with sending a `/make_leave`
|
|
|
|
request to a resident server. In the case of rejecting invites, the
|
|
|
|
resident server may be the server which sent the invite. After receiving
|
|
|
|
a template event from `/make_leave`, the leaving server signs the event
|
|
|
|
and replaces the `event_id` with its own. This is then sent to the
|
|
|
|
resident server via `/send_leave`. The resident server will then send
|
|
|
|
the event to other servers in the room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="leaving-v1" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="leaving-v2" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Third-party invites
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
More information about third-party invites is available in the
|
|
|
|
[Client-Server API](/client-server-api) under
|
|
|
|
the Third-party Invites module.
|
|
|
|
{{% /boxes/note %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a user wants to invite another user in a room but doesn't know the
|
|
|
|
Matrix ID to invite, they can do so using a third-party identifier (e.g.
|
|
|
|
an e-mail or a phone number).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This identifier and its bindings to Matrix IDs are verified by an
|
|
|
|
identity server implementing the [Identity Service
|
|
|
|
API](/identity-service-api).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Cases where an association exists for a third-party identifier
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the third-party identifier is already bound to a Matrix ID, a lookup
|
|
|
|
request on the identity server will return it. The invite is then
|
|
|
|
processed by the inviting homeserver as a standard `m.room.member`
|
|
|
|
invite event. This is the simplest case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Cases where an association doesn't exist for a third-party identifier
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the third-party identifier isn't bound to any Matrix ID, the inviting
|
|
|
|
homeserver will request the identity server to store an invite for this
|
|
|
|
identifier and to deliver it to whoever binds it to its Matrix ID. It
|
|
|
|
will also send an `m.room.third_party_invite` event in the room to
|
|
|
|
specify a display name, a token and public keys the identity server
|
|
|
|
provided as a response to the invite storage request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a third-party identifier with pending invites gets bound to a
|
|
|
|
Matrix ID, the identity server will send a POST request to the ID's
|
|
|
|
homeserver as described in the [Invitation
|
|
|
|
Storage](/identity-service-api#invitation-storage)
|
|
|
|
section of the Identity Service API.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following process applies for each invite sent by the identity
|
|
|
|
server:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The invited homeserver will create an `m.room.member` invite event
|
|
|
|
containing a special `third_party_invite` section containing the token
|
|
|
|
and a signed object, both provided by the identity server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the invited homeserver is in the room the invite came from, it can
|
|
|
|
auth the event and send it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, if the invited homeserver isn't in the room the invite came
|
|
|
|
from, it will need to request the room's homeserver to auth the event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="third_party_invite" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Verifying the invite
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a homeserver receives an `m.room.member` invite event for a room
|
|
|
|
it's in with a `third_party_invite` object, it must verify that the
|
|
|
|
association between the third-party identifier initially invited to the
|
|
|
|
room and the Matrix ID that claims to be bound to it has been verified
|
|
|
|
without having to rely on a third-party server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To do so, it will fetch from the room's state events the
|
|
|
|
`m.room.third_party_invite` event for which the state key matches with
|
|
|
|
the value for the `token` key in the `third_party_invite` object from
|
|
|
|
the `m.room.member` event's content to fetch the public keys initially
|
|
|
|
delivered by the identity server that stored the invite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It will then use these keys to verify that the `signed` object (in the
|
|
|
|
`third_party_invite` object from the `m.room.member` event's content)
|
|
|
|
was signed by the same identity server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since this `signed` object can only be delivered once in the POST
|
|
|
|
request emitted by the identity server upon binding between the
|
|
|
|
third-party identifier and the Matrix ID, and contains the invited
|
|
|
|
user's Matrix ID and the token delivered when the invite was stored,
|
|
|
|
this verification will prove that the `m.room.member` invite event comes
|
|
|
|
from the user owning the invited third-party identifier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Public Room Directory
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To complement the [Client-Server
|
|
|
|
API](/client-server-api)'s room directory,
|
|
|
|
homeservers need a way to query the public rooms for another server.
|
|
|
|
This can be done by making a request to the `/publicRooms` endpoint for
|
|
|
|
the server the room directory should be retrieved for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="public_rooms" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Spaces
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To complement the [Client-Server API's Spaces module](/client-server-api/#spaces),
|
|
|
|
homeservers need a way to query information about spaces from other servers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="space_hierarchy" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Typing Notifications
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a server's users send typing notifications, those notifications
|
|
|
|
need to be sent to other servers in the room so their users are aware of
|
|
|
|
the same state. Receiving servers should verify that the user is in the
|
|
|
|
room, and is a user belonging to the sending server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% definition path="api/server-server/definitions/event-schemas/m.typing" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Presence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The server API for presence is based entirely on exchange of the
|
|
|
|
following EDUs. There are no PDUs or Federation Queries involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Servers should only send presence updates for users that the receiving
|
|
|
|
server would be interested in. Such as the receiving server sharing a
|
|
|
|
room with a given user.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% definition path="api/server-server/definitions/event-schemas/m.presence" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Receipts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receipts are EDUs used to communicate a marker for a given event.
|
|
|
|
Currently the only kind of receipt supported is a "read receipt", or
|
|
|
|
where in the event graph the user has read up to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read receipts for events that a user sent do not need to be sent. It is
|
|
|
|
implied that by sending the event the user has read up to the event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% definition path="api/server-server/definitions/event-schemas/m.receipt" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Querying for information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Queries are a way to retrieve information from a homeserver about a
|
|
|
|
resource, such as a user or room. The endpoints here are often called in
|
|
|
|
conjunction with a request from a client on the client-server API in
|
|
|
|
order to complete the call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several types of queries that can be made. The generic
|
|
|
|
endpoint to represent all queries is described first, followed by the
|
|
|
|
more specific queries that can be made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="query" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## OpenID
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third-party services can exchange an access token previously generated
|
|
|
|
by the <span class="title-ref">Client-Server API</span> for information
|
|
|
|
about a user. This can help verify that a user is who they say they are
|
|
|
|
without granting full access to the user's account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Access tokens generated by the OpenID API are only good for the OpenID
|
|
|
|
API and nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="openid" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Device Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Details of a user's devices must be efficiently published to other users
|
|
|
|
and kept up-to-date. This is critical for reliable end-to-end
|
|
|
|
encryption, in order for users to know which devices are participating
|
|
|
|
in a room. It's also required for to-device messaging to work. This
|
|
|
|
section is intended to complement the [Device Management
|
|
|
|
module](/client-server-api#device-management)
|
|
|
|
of the Client-Server API.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matrix currently uses a custom pubsub system for synchronising
|
|
|
|
information about the list of devices for a given user over federation.
|
|
|
|
When a server wishes to determine a remote user's device list for the
|
|
|
|
first time, it should populate a local cache from the result of a
|
|
|
|
`/user/keys/query` API on the remote server. However, subsequent updates
|
|
|
|
to the cache should be applied by consuming `m.device_list_update` EDUs.
|
|
|
|
Each new `m.device_list_update` EDU describes an incremental change to
|
|
|
|
one device for a given user which should replace any existing entry in
|
|
|
|
the local server's cache of that device list. Servers must send
|
|
|
|
`m.device_list_update` EDUs to all the servers who share a room with a
|
|
|
|
given local user, and must be sent whenever that user's device list
|
|
|
|
changes (i.e. for new or deleted devices, when that user joins a room
|
|
|
|
which contains servers which are not already receiving updates for that
|
|
|
|
user's device list, or changes in device information such as the
|
|
|
|
device's human-readable name).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Servers send `m.device_list_update` EDUs in a sequence per origin user,
|
|
|
|
each with a unique `stream_id`. They also include a pointer to the most
|
|
|
|
recent previous EDU(s) that this update is relative to in the `prev_id`
|
|
|
|
field. To simplify implementation for clustered servers which could send
|
|
|
|
multiple EDUs at the same time, the `prev_id` field should include all
|
|
|
|
`m.device_list_update` EDUs which have not been yet been referenced in a
|
|
|
|
EDU. If EDUs are emitted in series by a server, there should only ever
|
|
|
|
be one `prev_id` in the EDU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This forms a simple directed acyclic graph of `m.device_list_update`
|
|
|
|
EDUs, showing which EDUs a server needs to have received in order to
|
|
|
|
apply an update to its local copy of the remote user's device list. If a
|
|
|
|
server receives an EDU which refers to a `prev_id` it does not
|
|
|
|
recognise, it must resynchronise its list by calling the
|
|
|
|
`/user/keys/query API` and resume the process. The response contains a
|
|
|
|
`stream_id` which should be used to correlate with subsequent
|
|
|
|
`m.device_list_update` EDUs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="user_devices" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% definition path="api/server-server/definitions/event-schemas/m.device_list_update" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## End-to-End Encryption
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This section complements the [End-to-End Encryption
|
|
|
|
module](/client-server-api#end-to-end-encryption)
|
|
|
|
of the Client-Server API. For detailed information about end-to-end
|
|
|
|
encryption, please see that module.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The APIs defined here are designed to be able to proxy much of the
|
|
|
|
client's request through to federation, and have the response also be
|
|
|
|
proxied through to the client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% http-api spec="server-server" api="user_keys" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% definition path="api/server-server/definitions/event-schemas/m.signing_key_update" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Send-to-device messaging
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The server API for send-to-device messaging is based on the
|
|
|
|
`m.direct_to_device` EDU. There are no PDUs or Federation Queries
|
|
|
|
involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each send-to-device message should be sent to the destination server
|
|
|
|
using the following EDU:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{% definition path="api/server-server/definitions/event-schemas/m.direct_to_device" %}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Content Repository
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attachments to events (images, files, etc) are uploaded to a homeserver
|
|
|
|
via the Content Repository described in the [Client-Server
|
|
|
|
API](/client-server-api). When a server wishes
|
|
|
|
to serve content originating from a remote server, it needs to ask the
|
|
|
|
remote server for the media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Servers should use the server described in the Matrix Content URI, which
|
|
|
|
has the format `mxc://{ServerName}/{MediaID}`. Servers should use the
|
|
|
|
download endpoint described in the [Client-Server
|
|
|
|
API](/client-server-api), being sure to use
|
|
|
|
the `allow_remote` parameter (set to `false`).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Server Access Control Lists (ACLs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Server ACLs and their purpose are described in the [Server
|
|
|
|
ACLs](/client-server-api#server-access-control-lists-acls-for-rooms)
|
|
|
|
section of the Client-Server API.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a remote server makes a request, it MUST be verified to be allowed
|
|
|
|
by the server ACLs. If the server is denied access to a room, the
|
|
|
|
receiving server MUST reply with a 403 HTTP status code and an `errcode`
|
|
|
|
of `M_FORBIDDEN`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following endpoint prefixes MUST be protected:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/send` (on a per-PDU basis)
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/make_join`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/make_leave`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/send_join`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v2/send_join`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/send_leave`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v2/send_leave`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/invite`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v2/invite`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/make_knock`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/send_knock`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/state`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/state_ids`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/backfill`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/event_auth`
|
|
|
|
- `/_matrix/federation/v1/get_missing_events`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Signing Events
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signing events is complicated by the fact that servers can choose to
|
|
|
|
redact non-essential parts of an event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Adding hashes and signatures to outgoing events
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before signing the event, the *content hash* of the event is calculated
|
|
|
|
as described below. The hash is encoded using [Unpadded
|
|
|
|
Base64](/appendices#unpadded-base64) and stored in the event
|
|
|
|
object, in a `hashes` object, under a `sha256` key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The event object is then *redacted*, following the [redaction
|
|
|
|
algorithm](/client-server-api#redactions).
|
|
|
|
Finally it is signed as described in [Signing
|
|
|
|
JSON](/appendices#signing-json), using the server's signing key
|
|
|
|
(see also [Retrieving server keys](#retrieving-server-keys)).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The signature is then copied back to the original event object.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For an example of a signed event, see the [room version
|
|
|
|
specification](/rooms).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Validating hashes and signatures on received events
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a server receives an event over federation from another server, the
|
|
|
|
receiving server should check the hashes and signatures on that event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First the signature is checked. The event is redacted following the
|
|
|
|
[redaction
|
|
|
|
algorithm](/client-server-api#redactions), and
|
|
|
|
the resultant object is checked for a signature from the originating
|
|
|
|
server, following the algorithm described in [Checking for a
|
|
|
|
signature](/appendices#checking-for-a-signature). Note that this
|
|
|
|
step should succeed whether we have been sent the full event or a
|
|
|
|
redacted copy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The signatures expected on an event are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The `sender`'s server, unless the invite was created as a result of
|
|
|
|
3rd party invite. The sender must already match the 3rd party
|
|
|
|
invite, and the server which actually sends the event may be a
|
|
|
|
different server.
|
|
|
|
- For room versions 1 and 2, the server which created the `event_id`.
|
|
|
|
Other room versions do not track the `event_id` over federation and
|
|
|
|
therefore do not need a signature from those servers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the signature is found to be valid, the expected content hash is
|
|
|
|
calculated as described below. The content hash in the `hashes` property
|
|
|
|
of the received event is base64-decoded, and the two are compared for
|
|
|
|
equality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the hash check fails, then it is assumed that this is because we have
|
|
|
|
only been given a redacted version of the event. To enforce this, the
|
|
|
|
receiving server should use the redacted copy it calculated rather than
|
|
|
|
the full copy it received.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Calculating the reference hash for an event
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The *reference hash* of an event covers the essential fields of an
|
|
|
|
event, including content hashes. It is used for event identifiers in
|
|
|
|
some room versions. See the [room version
|
|
|
|
specification](/rooms) for more information. It is
|
|
|
|
calculated as follows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The event is put through the redaction algorithm.
|
|
|
|
2. The `signatures`, `age_ts`, and `unsigned` properties are removed
|
|
|
|
from the event, if present.
|
|
|
|
3. The event is converted into [Canonical
|
|
|
|
JSON](/appendices#canonical-json).
|
|
|
|
4. A sha256 hash is calculated on the resulting JSON object.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Calculating the content hash for an event
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The *content hash* of an event covers the complete event including the
|
|
|
|
*unredacted* contents. It is calculated as follows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, any existing `unsigned`, `signature`, and `hashes` members are
|
|
|
|
removed. The resulting object is then encoded as [Canonical
|
|
|
|
JSON](/appendices#canonical-json), and the JSON is hashed using
|
|
|
|
SHA-256.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Example code
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```py
|
|
|
|
def hash_and_sign_event(event_object, signing_key, signing_name):
|
|
|
|
# First we need to hash the event object.
|
|
|
|
content_hash = compute_content_hash(event_object)
|
|
|
|
event_object["hashes"] = {"sha256": encode_unpadded_base64(content_hash)}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Strip all the keys that would be removed if the event was redacted.
|
|
|
|
# The hashes are not stripped and cover all the keys in the event.
|
|
|
|
# This means that we can tell if any of the non-essential keys are
|
|
|
|
# modified or removed.
|
|
|
|
stripped_object = strip_non_essential_keys(event_object)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Sign the stripped JSON object. The signature only covers the
|
|
|
|
# essential keys and the hashes. This means that we can check the
|
|
|
|
# signature even if the event is redacted.
|
|
|
|
signed_object = sign_json(stripped_object, signing_key, signing_name)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Copy the signatures from the stripped event to the original event.
|
|
|
|
event_object["signatures"] = signed_object["signatures"]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
def compute_content_hash(event_object):
|
|
|
|
# take a copy of the event before we remove any keys.
|
|
|
|
event_object = dict(event_object)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Keys under "unsigned" can be modified by other servers.
|
|
|
|
# They are useful for conveying information like the age of an
|
|
|
|
# event that will change in transit.
|
|
|
|
# Since they can be modified we need to exclude them from the hash.
|
|
|
|
event_object.pop("unsigned", None)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Signatures will depend on the current value of the "hashes" key.
|
|
|
|
# We cannot add new hashes without invalidating existing signatures.
|
|
|
|
event_object.pop("signatures", None)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# The "hashes" key might contain multiple algorithms if we decide to
|
|
|
|
# migrate away from SHA-2. We don't want to include an existing hash
|
|
|
|
# output in our hash so we exclude the "hashes" dict from the hash.
|
|
|
|
event_object.pop("hashes", None)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Encode the JSON using a canonical encoding so that we get the same
|
|
|
|
# bytes on every server for the same JSON object.
|
|
|
|
event_json_bytes = encode_canonical_json(event_object)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return hashlib.sha256(event_json_bytes)
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Security considerations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a domain's ownership changes, the new controller of the domain can
|
|
|
|
masquerade as the previous owner, receiving messages (similarly to
|
|
|
|
email) and request past messages from other servers. In the future,
|
|
|
|
proposals like
|
|
|
|
[MSC1228](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/issues/1228) will
|
|
|
|
address this issue.
|