policy,state: key the peer map by node ID

Adjacency becomes immutable, so a snapshot can resolve peers through its
own fresh views instead of storing them.

Updates #3417

hscontrol/policy/pm.go

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ type PolicyManager interface {
 	// MatchersForNode returns matchers for peer relationship determination (unreduced)
 	MatchersForNode(node types.NodeView) ([]matcher.Match, error)
 	// BuildPeerMap constructs peer relationship maps for the given nodes
-	BuildPeerMap(nodes views.Slice[types.NodeView]) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView
+	BuildPeerMap(nodes views.Slice[types.NodeView]) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID
 	SSHPolicy(baseURL string, node types.NodeView) (*tailcfg.SSHPolicy, error)
 	// SSHCheckParams resolves the SSH check period for a (src, dst) pair
 	// from the current policy, avoiding trust of client-provided URL params.

hscontrol/policy/v2/issue_3212_test.go

@@ -90,8 +90,8 @@ func TestIssue3212AutogroupInternetExitVisibility(t *testing.T) {
 					map[types.NodeID]struct{},
 					len(peerMap[srcNode.ID]),
 				)
-				for _, p := range peerMap[srcNode.ID] {
-					peerIDs[p.ID()] = struct{}{}
+				for _, id := range peerMap[srcNode.ID] {
+					peerIDs[id] = struct{}{}
 				}
 
 				for _, exitName := range exitNames {

hscontrol/policy/v2/issue_3233_test.go

@@ -71,15 +71,11 @@ func TestIssue3233ViaInternetExitVisibility(t *testing.T) {
 		peerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(nodes.ViewSlice())
 
 		require.True(t,
-			slices.ContainsFunc(peerMap[aliceLaptop.ID], func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-				return n.ID() == aliceExit.ID
-			}),
+			slices.Contains(peerMap[aliceLaptop.ID], aliceExit.ID),
 			"alice must see her tag:exit1 exit node as a peer")
 
 		require.False(t,
-			slices.ContainsFunc(peerMap[aliceLaptop.ID], func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-				return n.ID() == bobExit.ID
-			}),
+			slices.Contains(peerMap[aliceLaptop.ID], bobExit.ID),
 			"alice must not see bob's tag:exit2 exit node — via grant scopes to tag:exit1")
 	})
 

hscontrol/policy/v2/policy.go

@@ -603,7 +603,7 @@ func (pm *PolicyManager) Filter() ([]tailcfg.FilterRule, []matcher.Match) {
 // up with doing the full work for every node O(n^2), while this will reduce
 // the list as we see relationships while building the map, making it
 // O(n^2/2) in the end, but with less work per node.
-func (pm *PolicyManager) BuildPeerMap(nodes views.Slice[types.NodeView]) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView {
+func (pm *PolicyManager) BuildPeerMap(nodes views.Slice[types.NodeView]) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID {
 	if pm == nil {
 		return nil
 	}
@@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ func (pm *PolicyManager) BuildPeerMap(nodes views.Slice[types.NodeView]) map[typ
 	// Via grants require the per-node path because the global filter
 	// skips via grants (compileFilterRules: if len(grant.Via) > 0 { continue }).
 	if !pm.needsPerNodeFilter {
-		ret := make(map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView, nodes.Len())
+		ret := make(map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID, nodes.Len())
 
 		// Build the map of all peers according to the matchers.
 		for i := range nodes.Len() {
@@ -639,8 +639,8 @@ func (pm *PolicyManager) BuildPeerMap(nodes views.Slice[types.NodeView]) map[typ
 				ri, rj := routeInfo[nodes.At(i).ID()], routeInfo[nodes.At(j).ID()]
 				if nodes.At(i).CanAccessWithRoutes(pm.matchers, nodes.At(j), ri.subnet, rj.subnet, rj.isExit) ||
 					nodes.At(j).CanAccessWithRoutes(pm.matchers, nodes.At(i), rj.subnet, ri.subnet, ri.isExit) {
-					ret[nodes.At(i).ID()] = append(ret[nodes.At(i).ID()], nodes.At(j))
-					ret[nodes.At(j).ID()] = append(ret[nodes.At(j).ID()], nodes.At(i))
+					ret[nodes.At(i).ID()] = append(ret[nodes.At(i).ID()], nodes.At(j).ID())
+					ret[nodes.At(j).ID()] = append(ret[nodes.At(j).ID()], nodes.At(i).ID())
 				}
 			}
 		}
@@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ func (pm *PolicyManager) BuildPeerMap(nodes views.Slice[types.NodeView]) map[typ
 	}
 
 	// For autogroup:self or via grants, build per-node peer relationships
-	ret := make(map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView, nodes.Len())
+	ret := make(map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID, nodes.Len())
 
 	// Pre-compute per-node matchers using unreduced compiled rules
 	// We need unreduced rules to determine peer relationships correctly.
@@ -692,8 +692,8 @@ func (pm *PolicyManager) BuildPeerMap(nodes views.Slice[types.NodeView]) map[typ
 			canIReachJ := hasFilterJ && nodeI.CanAccessWithRoutes(matchersJ, nodeJ, riI.subnet, riJ.subnet, riJ.isExit)
 
 			if canIAccessJ || canJAccessI || canJReachI || canIReachJ {
-				ret[nodeI.ID()] = append(ret[nodeI.ID()], nodeJ)
-				ret[nodeJ.ID()] = append(ret[nodeJ.ID()], nodeI)
+				ret[nodeI.ID()] = append(ret[nodeI.ID()], nodeJ.ID())
+				ret[nodeJ.ID()] = append(ret[nodeJ.ID()], nodeI.ID())
 			}
 		}
 	}

hscontrol/policy/v2/policy_test.go

@@ -741,9 +741,8 @@ func TestAutogroupSelfWithOtherRules(t *testing.T) {
 	test1Peers := peerMap[test1Node.ID]
 
 	// Verify test-1 can see the router (group:home -> tag:node-router rule)
-	require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(test1Peers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-		return n.ID() == test2RouterNode.ID
-	}), "test-1 should see test-2's router via group:home -> tag:node-router rule, even when autogroup:self rule exists (issue #2838)")
+	require.True(t, slices.Contains(test1Peers, test2RouterNode.ID),
+		"test-1 should see test-2's router via group:home -> tag:node-router rule, even when autogroup:self rule exists (issue #2838)")
 
 	// Verify that test-1 has filter rules (including autogroup:self and tag:node-router access)
 	rules, err := pm.FilterForNode(test1Node.View())
@@ -903,12 +902,12 @@ func TestTagPropagationToPeerMap(t *testing.T) {
 	// Check user2's peers - should include user1
 	user2Peers := initialPeerMap[user2Node.ID]
 	require.Len(t, user2Peers, 1, "user2 should have 1 peer initially (user1 with tag:web)")
-	require.Equal(t, user1Node.ID, user2Peers[0].ID(), "user2's peer should be user1")
+	require.Equal(t, user1Node.ID, user2Peers[0], "user2's peer should be user1")
 
 	// Check user1's peers - should include user2 (bidirectional ACL)
 	user1Peers := initialPeerMap[user1Node.ID]
 	require.Len(t, user1Peers, 1, "user1 should have 1 peer initially (user2)")
-	require.Equal(t, user2Node.ID, user1Peers[0].ID(), "user1's peer should be user2")
+	require.Equal(t, user2Node.ID, user1Peers[0], "user1's peer should be user2")
 
 	// Now change user1's tags: remove tag:web, keep only tag:internal
 	user1NodeUpdated := &types.Node{
@@ -1035,17 +1034,15 @@ func TestAutogroupSelfWithAdminOverride(t *testing.T) {
 
 	// Admin should see the tagged server as a peer (via group:admin -> *:* rule)
 	adminPeers := peerMap[adminNode.ID]
-	require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(adminPeers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-		return n.ID() == user1TaggedNode.ID
-	}), "admin should see tagged server as peer via *:* rule (issue #2990)")
+	require.True(t, slices.Contains(adminPeers, user1TaggedNode.ID),
+		"admin should see tagged server as peer via *:* rule (issue #2990)")
 
 	// Tagged server should also see admin as a peer (symmetric visibility)
 	// Even though tagged server cannot ACCESS admin, it should still SEE admin
 	// because admin CAN access it. This is required for proper network operation.
 	taggedPeers := peerMap[user1TaggedNode.ID]
-	require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(taggedPeers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-		return n.ID() == adminNode.ID
-	}), "tagged server should see admin as peer (symmetric visibility)")
+	require.True(t, slices.Contains(taggedPeers, adminNode.ID),
+		"tagged server should see admin as peer (symmetric visibility)")
 }
 
 // TestAutogroupSelfSymmetricVisibility verifies that peer visibility is symmetric:
@@ -1108,16 +1105,14 @@ func TestAutogroupSelfSymmetricVisibility(t *testing.T) {
 
 	// Device A (user1) should see device B (tag:web) as peer
 	aPeers := peerMap[deviceA.ID]
-	require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(aPeers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-		return n.ID() == deviceB.ID
-	}), "device A should see device B as peer (user1 -> tag:web rule)")
+	require.True(t, slices.Contains(aPeers, deviceB.ID),
+		"device A should see device B as peer (user1 -> tag:web rule)")
 
 	// Device B (tag:web) should ALSO see device A as peer (symmetric visibility)
 	// Even though B cannot ACCESS A, B should still SEE A as a peer
 	bPeers := peerMap[deviceB.ID]
-	require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(bPeers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-		return n.ID() == deviceA.ID
-	}), "device B should see device A as peer (symmetric visibility)")
+	require.True(t, slices.Contains(bPeers, deviceA.ID),
+		"device B should see device A as peer (symmetric visibility)")
 }
 
 // TestAutogroupSelfDoesNotBreakOtherUsersAccess reproduces the Discord scenario
@@ -1253,11 +1248,7 @@ func TestAutogroupSelfDoesNotBreakOtherUsersAccess(t *testing.T) {
 
 	// Helper to check if node A sees node B
 	canSee := func(a, b types.NodeID) bool {
-		peers := peerMap[a]
-
-		return slices.ContainsFunc(peers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-			return n.ID() == b
-		})
+		return slices.Contains(peerMap[a], b)
 	}
 
 	// Superadmin should see all tagged servers
@@ -1357,16 +1348,14 @@ func TestEmptyFilterNodesStillVisible(t *testing.T) {
 
 	// Admin should see the tagged server
 	adminPeers := peerMap[adminDevice.ID]
-	require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(adminPeers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-		return n.ID() == taggedServer.ID
-	}), "admin should see tagged server")
+	require.True(t, slices.Contains(adminPeers, taggedServer.ID),
+		"admin should see tagged server")
 
 	// Tagged server should see admin (symmetric visibility)
 	// Even though the server has no outbound rules (empty filter)
 	serverPeers := peerMap[taggedServer.ID]
-	require.True(t, slices.ContainsFunc(serverPeers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-		return n.ID() == adminDevice.ID
-	}), "tagged server should see admin (symmetric visibility)")
+	require.True(t, slices.Contains(serverPeers, adminDevice.ID),
+		"tagged server should see admin (symmetric visibility)")
 }
 
 // TestAutogroupSelfCombinedWithTags verifies that autogroup:self combined with
@@ -1434,11 +1423,7 @@ func TestAutogroupSelfCombinedWithTags(t *testing.T) {
 
 	// Helper to check visibility
 	canSee := func(a, b types.NodeID) bool {
-		peers := peerMap[a]
-
-		return slices.ContainsFunc(peers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-			return n.ID() == b
-		})
+		return slices.Contains(peerMap[a], b)
 	}
 
 	// Admin laptop should see: admin phone (autogroup:self) AND web server (tag:web)
@@ -1527,11 +1512,7 @@ func TestIssue2990SameUserTaggedDevice(t *testing.T) {
 	peerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(nodes.ViewSlice())
 
 	canSee := func(a, b types.NodeID) bool {
-		peers := peerMap[a]
-
-		return slices.ContainsFunc(peers, func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-			return n.ID() == b
-		})
+		return slices.Contains(peerMap[a], b)
 	}
 
 	// node1 should see node2 (via group:admin -> *:* and symmetric visibility)
@@ -2205,9 +2186,7 @@ func TestBuildPeerMap_AutogroupInternetMakesExitNodeVisible(t *testing.T) {
 	peerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(nodes.ViewSlice())
 
 	require.True(t,
-		slices.ContainsFunc(peerMap[aliceNode.ID], func(n types.NodeView) bool {
-			return n.ID() == exitNode.ID
-		}),
+		slices.Contains(peerMap[aliceNode.ID], exitNode.ID),
 		"alice should see the exit node as a peer when an ACL grants autogroup:internet (#3212)")
 
 	_, matchers := pm.Filter()
@@ -2527,12 +2506,6 @@ func TestPeerRelayGrantMakesRelayVisible(t *testing.T) {
 		},
 	}
 
-	containsID := func(peers []types.NodeView, id types.NodeID) bool {
-		return slices.ContainsFunc(peers, func(nv types.NodeView) bool {
-			return nv.ID() == id
-		})
-	}
-
 	for _, tt := range tests {
 		t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
 			pm, err := NewPolicyManager(
@@ -2543,10 +2516,10 @@ func TestPeerRelayGrantMakesRelayVisible(t *testing.T) {
 			peerMap := pm.BuildPeerMap(tt.nodes.ViewSlice())
 
 			for _, srcID := range tt.srcIDs {
-				require.True(t, containsID(peerMap[srcID], tt.relayID),
+				require.True(t, slices.Contains(peerMap[srcID], tt.relayID),
 					"node %d must see relay %d via cap/relay alone",
 					srcID, tt.relayID)
-				require.True(t, containsID(peerMap[tt.relayID], srcID),
+				require.True(t, slices.Contains(peerMap[tt.relayID], srcID),
 					"relay %d must see node %d via cap/relay alone",
 					tt.relayID, srcID)
 			}

hscontrol/state/node_store.go

@@ -148,13 +148,18 @@ func NewNodeStore(allNodes types.Nodes, peersFunc PeersFunc, batchSize int, batc
 type Snapshot struct {
 	// nodesByID is the main source of truth for nodes.
 	nodesByID map[types.NodeID]types.Node
+	// nodeViewsByID resolves peer adjacency IDs to immutable views from this
+	// snapshot without rebuilding every peer slice on each write.
+	nodeViewsByID map[types.NodeID]types.NodeView
 
 	// calculated from nodesByID
 	nodesByNodeKey    map[key.NodePublic]types.NodeView
 	nodesByMachineKey map[key.MachinePublic]map[types.UserID]types.NodeView
-	peersByNode       map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView
-	nodesByUser       map[types.UserID][]types.NodeView
-	allNodes          []types.NodeView
+	// peersByNode stores immutable adjacency as IDs; ListPeers resolves the
+	// corresponding views through nodeViewsByID.
+	peersByNode map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID
+	nodesByUser map[types.UserID][]types.NodeView
+	allNodes    []types.NodeView
 
 	// routes maps each prefix to its current primary advertiser. The
 	// previous assignment is carried over when still valid so the
@@ -167,7 +172,7 @@ type Snapshot struct {
 // with the relationships between nodes and their peers.
 // This will typically be used to calculate which nodes can see each other
 // based on the current policy.
-type PeersFunc func(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView
+type PeersFunc func(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID
 
 // work represents a single operation to be performed on the [NodeStore].
 type work struct {
@@ -608,14 +613,19 @@ func snapshotFromNodes(
 	defer timer.ObserveDuration()
 
 	allNodes := make([]types.NodeView, 0, len(nodes))
+	nodeViewsByID := make(map[types.NodeID]types.NodeView, len(nodes))
+
 	for _, n := range nodes {
-		allNodes = append(allNodes, n.View())
+		nv := n.View()
+		allNodes = append(allNodes, nv)
+		nodeViewsByID[n.ID] = nv
 	}
 
 	routes, isPrimaryRoute := electPrimaryRoutes(nodes, prevRoutes)
 
 	newSnap := Snapshot{
 		nodesByID:         nodes,
+		nodeViewsByID:     nodeViewsByID,
 		allNodes:          allNodes,
 		nodesByNodeKey:    make(map[key.NodePublic]types.NodeView),
 		nodesByMachineKey: make(map[key.MachinePublic]map[types.UserID]types.NodeView),
@@ -624,7 +634,7 @@ func snapshotFromNodes(
 		// it will use the list of all nodes, combined with the
 		// current policy to precalculate which nodes are peers and
 		// can see each other.
-		peersByNode: func() map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView {
+		peersByNode: func() map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID {
 			peersTimer := prometheus.NewTimer(nodeStorePeersCalculationDuration)
 			defer peersTimer.ObserveDuration()
 
@@ -638,7 +648,7 @@ func snapshotFromNodes(
 
 	// Build nodesByUser, nodesByNodeKey, and nodesByMachineKey maps
 	for _, n := range nodes {
-		nodeView := n.View()
+		nodeView := nodeViewsByID[n.ID]
 		userID := n.TypedUserID()
 
 		// Tagged nodes are owned by their tags, not a user,
@@ -649,7 +659,6 @@ func snapshotFromNodes(
 
 		newSnap.nodesByNodeKey[n.NodeKey] = nodeView
 
-		// Build machine key index
 		if newSnap.nodesByMachineKey[n.MachineKey] == nil {
 			newSnap.nodesByMachineKey[n.MachineKey] = make(map[types.UserID]types.NodeView)
 		}
@@ -882,7 +891,17 @@ func (s *NodeStore) ListPeers(id types.NodeID) views.Slice[types.NodeView] {
 
 	nodeStoreOperations.WithLabelValues("list_peers").Inc()
 
-	return views.SliceOf(s.data.Load().peersByNode[id])
+	snapshot := s.data.Load()
+	peerIDs := snapshot.peersByNode[id]
+	peers := make([]types.NodeView, 0, len(peerIDs))
+
+	for _, peerID := range peerIDs {
+		if peer, ok := snapshot.nodeViewsByID[peerID]; ok {
+			peers = append(peers, peer)
+		}
+	}
+
+	return views.SliceOf(peers)
 }
 
 // PrimaryRouteFor returns the current primary advertiser for prefix.

hscontrol/state/node_store_test.go

@@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ func TestSnapshotFromNodes(t *testing.T) {
 			name: "empty nodes",
 			setupFunc: func() (map[types.NodeID]types.Node, PeersFunc) {
 				nodes := make(map[types.NodeID]types.Node)
-				peersFunc := func(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView {
-					return make(map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView)
+				peersFunc := func(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID {
+					return make(map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID)
 				}
 
 				return nodes, peersFunc
@@ -79,9 +79,9 @@ func TestSnapshotFromNodes(t *testing.T) {
 
 				// Each node sees the other as peer (but not itself)
 				assert.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[1], 1)
-				assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(2), snapshot.peersByNode[1][0].ID())
+				assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(2), snapshot.peersByNode[1][0])
 				assert.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[2], 1)
-				assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(1), snapshot.peersByNode[2][0].ID())
+				assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(1), snapshot.peersByNode[2][0])
 				assert.Len(t, snapshot.nodesByUser[1], 2)
 			},
 		},
@@ -133,17 +133,17 @@ func TestSnapshotFromNodes(t *testing.T) {
 
 				// Odd nodes should only see other odd nodes as peers
 				require.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[1], 1)
-				assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(3), snapshot.peersByNode[1][0].ID())
+				assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(3), snapshot.peersByNode[1][0])
 
 				require.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[3], 1)
-				assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(1), snapshot.peersByNode[3][0].ID())
+				assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(1), snapshot.peersByNode[3][0])
 
 				// Even nodes should only see other even nodes as peers
 				require.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[2], 1)
-				assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(4), snapshot.peersByNode[2][0].ID())
+				assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(4), snapshot.peersByNode[2][0])
 
 				require.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[4], 1)
-				assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(2), snapshot.peersByNode[4][0].ID())
+				assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(2), snapshot.peersByNode[4][0])
 			},
 		},
 	}
@@ -190,14 +190,14 @@ func createTestNode(nodeID types.NodeID, userID uint, username, hostname string)
 
 // Peer functions
 
-func allowAllPeersFunc(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView {
-	ret := make(map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView, len(nodes))
+func allowAllPeersFunc(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID {
+	ret := make(map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID, len(nodes))
 	for _, node := range nodes {
-		var peers []types.NodeView
+		var peers []types.NodeID
 
 		for _, n := range nodes {
 			if n.ID() != node.ID() {
-				peers = append(peers, n)
+				peers = append(peers, n.ID())
 			}
 		}
 
@@ -207,10 +207,10 @@ func allowAllPeersFunc(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView
 	return ret
 }
 
-func oddEvenPeersFunc(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView {
-	ret := make(map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView, len(nodes))
+func oddEvenPeersFunc(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID {
+	ret := make(map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID, len(nodes))
 	for _, node := range nodes {
-		var peers []types.NodeView
+		var peers []types.NodeID
 
 		nodeIsOdd := node.ID()%2 == 1
 
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ func oddEvenPeersFunc(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView
 
 			// Only add peer if both are odd or both are even
 			if nodeIsOdd == peerIsOdd {
-				peers = append(peers, n)
+				peers = append(peers, n.ID())
 			}
 		}
 
@@ -313,9 +313,9 @@ func TestNodeStoreOperations(t *testing.T) {
 
 						// Now both nodes should see each other as peers
 						assert.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[1], 1)
-						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(2), snapshot.peersByNode[1][0].ID())
+						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(2), snapshot.peersByNode[1][0])
 						assert.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[2], 1)
-						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(1), snapshot.peersByNode[2][0].ID())
+						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(1), snapshot.peersByNode[2][0])
 						assert.Len(t, snapshot.nodesByUser[1], 2)
 					},
 				},
@@ -382,9 +382,9 @@ func TestNodeStoreOperations(t *testing.T) {
 
 						// Remaining nodes should see each other as peers
 						assert.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[1], 1)
-						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(3), snapshot.peersByNode[1][0].ID())
+						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(3), snapshot.peersByNode[1][0])
 						assert.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[3], 1)
-						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(1), snapshot.peersByNode[3][0].ID())
+						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(1), snapshot.peersByNode[3][0])
 
 						// User groupings updated
 						assert.Len(t, snapshot.nodesByUser[1], 1) // user1 now has only node 1
@@ -475,16 +475,16 @@ func TestNodeStoreOperations(t *testing.T) {
 
 						// Verify odd-even peer relationships
 						require.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[1], 1)
-						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(3), snapshot.peersByNode[1][0].ID())
+						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(3), snapshot.peersByNode[1][0])
 
 						require.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[2], 1)
-						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(4), snapshot.peersByNode[2][0].ID())
+						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(4), snapshot.peersByNode[2][0])
 
 						require.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[3], 1)
-						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(1), snapshot.peersByNode[3][0].ID())
+						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(1), snapshot.peersByNode[3][0])
 
 						require.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[4], 1)
-						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(2), snapshot.peersByNode[4][0].ID())
+						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(2), snapshot.peersByNode[4][0])
 					},
 				},
 				{
@@ -500,9 +500,9 @@ func TestNodeStoreOperations(t *testing.T) {
 
 						// Even nodes should still see each other
 						require.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[2], 1)
-						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(4), snapshot.peersByNode[2][0].ID())
+						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(4), snapshot.peersByNode[2][0])
 						require.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[4], 1)
-						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(2), snapshot.peersByNode[4][0].ID())
+						assert.Equal(t, types.NodeID(2), snapshot.peersByNode[4][0])
 					},
 				},
 			},
@@ -1225,16 +1225,16 @@ func TestRebuildPeerMapsWithChangedPeersFunc(t *testing.T) {
 
 	// This simulates how PolicyManager.BuildPeerMap works - it reads state
 	// that can change between calls
-	dynamicPeersFunc := func(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView {
-		ret := make(map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView, len(nodes))
+	dynamicPeersFunc := func(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID {
+		ret := make(map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID, len(nodes))
 		if allowPeers {
 			// Allow all peers
 			for _, node := range nodes {
-				var peers []types.NodeView
+				var peers []types.NodeID
 
 				for _, n := range nodes {
 					if n.ID() != node.ID() {
-						peers = append(peers, n)
+						peers = append(peers, n.ID())
 					}
 				}
 
@@ -1243,7 +1243,7 @@ func TestRebuildPeerMapsWithChangedPeersFunc(t *testing.T) {
 		} else {
 			// Allow no peers
 			for _, node := range nodes {
-				ret[node.ID()] = []types.NodeView{}
+				ret[node.ID()] = []types.NodeID{}
 			}
 		}
 
@@ -1265,8 +1265,8 @@ func TestRebuildPeerMapsWithChangedPeersFunc(t *testing.T) {
 	snapshot := store.data.Load()
 	require.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[1], 1, "node1 should have 1 peer initially")
 	require.Len(t, snapshot.peersByNode[2], 1, "node2 should have 1 peer initially")
-	require.Equal(t, types.NodeID(2), snapshot.peersByNode[1][0].ID())
-	require.Equal(t, types.NodeID(1), snapshot.peersByNode[2][0].ID())
+	require.Equal(t, types.NodeID(2), snapshot.peersByNode[1][0])
+	require.Equal(t, types.NodeID(1), snapshot.peersByNode[2][0])
 
 	// Now "change the policy" by disabling peers
 	allowPeers = false

hscontrol/state/state.go

@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ func NewState(cfg *types.Config) (*State, error) {
 	// This moves the complex peer relationship logic into the policy package where it belongs.
 	nodeStore := NewNodeStore(
 		nodes,
-		func(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeView {
+		func(nodes []types.NodeView) map[types.NodeID][]types.NodeID {
 			return polMan.BuildPeerMap(views.SliceOf(nodes))
 		},
 		batchSize,