question

In this scenario, where the service account isn't coupled with the user's permission scope, are there risks of the agents escalating privileges or accessing data beyond necessary? If so, should we consider implementing guardrails to mitigate this?

@vij

Thanks! I think the second suggestion (mix of propagate non-propagated claims) might have been missed in the addition: a92b2835

But in the interest of moving the MR along, I'm happy to approve and we could add the additional test later! 🚀

@eduardobonet could you take over the maintainer review for this, please?

What does this merge request do and why?

GitLab team members using IDE plugins to trigger Duo Workflows via the direct_access endpoint intermittently have skip_usage_cutoff set to false, despite being valid team members. The same users show true on other requests milliseconds apart.

Root cause

The direct_access endpoint flow involves two tokens:

1. Rails → AIGW/DWS (gRPC GenerateToken): Rails sends a Cloud Connector token containing skip_usage_cutoff: true as an extra claim
2. AIGW/DWS → Rails → IDE Plugin: DWS generates a new workflow token and returns it
3. IDE Plugin → AIGW/DWS → AIGW (LLM calls): The IDE uses the DWS-generated token, which AIGW checks for skip_usage_cutoff

In step 2, the GenerateToken handler was building extra_claims with only gitlab_instance_uid, discarding all other incoming claims including skip_usage_cutoff.

Fix

Propagate skip_usage_cutoff extra claim from user.claims.extra into the DWS-generated token

How to set up and validate locally

Numbered steps to set up and validate the change are strongly suggested.

Merge request checklist

• Tests added for new functionality. If not, please raise an issue to follow up.
• Documentation added/updated, if needed.
• If this change requires executor implementation: verified that issues/MRs exist for both Go executor and Node executor or confirmed that changes are backward-compatible and don't break existing executor functionality.

Update 2026-03-13

Closing this - complete with gitlab-com/runbooks!10247 (merged)

cc: @mnohr @changzhengliu

@vij thanks for your work on this! I left a comment for your consideration! Have a look and let me know what you think!

🏓

suggestion

I'm not deeply familiar w/ the cloud connector domain but looking at the code, we iterate over the _PROPAGATED_EXTRA_CLAIMS rather than incoming_extra, which means non-propagated keys are silently excluded. Two gaps I think are worth covering in the tests:

1. Verifying that extra keys outside of _PROPAGATED_EXTRA_CLAIMS are explicitly excluded from the output
2. Verifying that when extra contains a mix of propagated and non-propagated claims, only the allowed claims are propagated

I think right now, the behaviour is implicitly tested through what is present but not through what shouldn't be and testing these edge cases more explicitly could help us guard against regressions if the iteration logic changes.

WDYT?

Async Status Update 2025-03-12

Progress & Status: What progress have you made? What's the current state?

• I've gotten the MR to add item_id to duo_workflows_workflows merged.
• Addressed several feedback on the backfill MR. This MR has now gotten final approved and MWPS set in progress, but pipeline is failing due to a seemingly unrelated reason, so will try to get this sorted and have MWPS re-set.
• Opened the final feature implementation MR for review and addressed some feedback

Next Steps: What are your planned next actions?

• Get pipeline issues resolved and have MWPS reset on the backfill MR
• Await follow up feedback for the feature implementation MR

Blockers: Are you blocked or need assistance with this?

• Not a major blocker but the first reviewer @wanpol for the feature implementation is on PTO until next Wednesday (18th April). Since there's ongoing discussions from the initial review, I think it makes sense to wait until their return but this means, this Issue won't make it into 18.10 as I was hoping for.

How confident are you that this will make it to the current milestone?

• Not confident (See blocker above)
• Slightly confident
• Very confident

/cc @mnohr @jordanjanes

@igor.drozdov thanks for the context. Looks like the MWPS failed due to a pipeline failure, I've rebased. Hopefully that should fix it!

Could you reset MWPS when the pipeline passes? 🙏🏾

Shola Quadri (3e091b63) at 12 Mar 13:21

... and 370 more commits

Shola Quadri (7efa1fc4) at 12 Mar 13:13

@hsilva5 thanks, lgtm!

What does this MR do and why?

Removes the feature flag `additional_snowplow_tracking`. Feature was never enabled in any environment, so default behaviour is set to false.

References

Screenshots or screen recordings

Before	After

How to set up and validate locally

MR acceptance checklist

Evaluate this MR against the MR acceptance checklist. It helps you analyze changes to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.

Related to #510635

Shola Quadri (95602408) at 12 Mar 12:35

... and 1324 more commits

Shola Quadri (a053b70a) at 12 Mar 11:19

... and 720 more commits

Shola Quadri (306588c4) at 12 Mar 11:01

... and 2 more commits

Shola Quadri (e9a4d2ca) at 11 Mar 18:02

... and 484 more commits

Hi @reprazent following this discussion, would you mind reviewing this, please?

Async Status Update 2025-03-11

Progress & Status: What progress have you made? What's the current state?

• I found the root cause for this as part of my investigations and proposed some fix approaches w/ feedback from the Observability team. I've now opened a fix MR that's awaiting review.

Next Steps: What are your planned next actions?

• Get fix MR reviewed & merged

Blockers: Are you blocked or need assistance with this?

• N/A

How confident are you that this will make it to the current milestone?

• Not confident
• Slightly confident
• Very confident

/cc @mnohr @jordanjanes