feat(cloudflare): Add allow list to enableRpcTracePropagation - #23363
Open
JPeer264 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
feat(cloudflare): Add allow list to enableRpcTracePropagation#23363JPeer264 wants to merge 1 commit into
JPeer264 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
JPeer264
requested review from
andreiborza,
isaacs,
mydea and
s1gr1d
and removed request for
a team,
isaacs and
mydea
August 12, 2026 13:26
Contributor
size-limit report 📦
|
JPeer264
force-pushed
the
jp/rpc-allow-list
branch
from
August 12, 2026 13:34
1230b45 to
e441aef
Compare
Comment on lines
94
to
100
| return instrumented; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (!options?.enableRpcTracePropagation) { | ||
| if (!shouldPropagateRpcTrace(String(prop))) { | ||
| return item; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Bug: The module-level instrumentedBindings cache is checked before the shouldPropagateRpcTrace predicate, causing cached bindings to bypass RPC propagation rules on subsequent requests with different configurations.
Severity: MEDIUM
Suggested Fix
The order of operations should be changed. The shouldPropagateRpcTrace predicate should be checked before attempting to retrieve a binding from the instrumentedBindings cache. This ensures that the current invocation's configuration is always respected, even if a cached version of the binding exists from a previous invocation with a different configuration.
Prompt for AI Agent
Review the code at the location below. A potential bug has been identified by an AI
agent. Verify if this is a real issue. If it is, propose a fix; if not, explain why it's
not valid.
Location: packages/cloudflare/src/instrumentations/worker/instrumentEnv.ts#L94-L100
Potential issue: A module-level cache, `instrumentedBindings`, stores instrumented RPC
bindings. This cache is checked before the `shouldPropagateRpcTrace` predicate is
evaluated. If an RPC binding is accessed with a permissive configuration (e.g.,
`enableRpcTracePropagation: true`), it is instrumented and cached. A subsequent
invocation with a more restrictive configuration will hit the cache and return the
already-instrumented binding, bypassing the new configuration's allow-list check. This
results in unintended trace propagation for RPC calls.
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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.
This adds an allow list to
enableRpcTracePropagationthe accepts an array of strings and regular expressions. ThecreateRpcPropagationResolverreturns a function so inside the Proxy we don't have to go over the if's over and over (as the config doesn't change dynamically).This closes #23233, but I'd like to add one more feature into the stack: That our Vite plugin is automatically allow listing bindings within the same deployment, as these are safe to be added (we know for sure that these are instrumented with Sentry and RPC trace propagation is ok to have)