All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"ak@tempesta-tech.com" <ak@tempesta-tech.com>,
	"borisp@nvidia.com" <borisp@nvidia.com>,
	"simo@redhat.com" <simo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/5] net/tls: Add support for PF_TLSH (a TLS handshake listener)
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:47:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220426164712.068e365c@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BA6BB8F6-3A2A-427B-A5D7-30B5F778B7E0@oracle.com>

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:58:29 +0000 Chuck Lever III wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 2022, at 10:55 AM, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> The RPC-with-TLS standard allows unencrypted RPC traffic on the connection
> >> before sending ClientHello. I think we'd like to stick with creating the
> >> socket in the kernel, for this reason and for the reasons Hannes mentions
> >> in his reply.  
> > 
> > Umpf, I presume that's reviewed by security people in IETF so I guess
> > it's done right this time (tm).  
> 
> > Your wording seems careful not to imply that you actually need that,
> > tho. Am I over-interpreting?  
> 
> RPC-with-TLS requires one RPC as a "starttls" token. That could be
> done in user space as part of the handshake, but it is currently
> done in the kernel to enable the user agent to be shared with other
> kernel consumers of TLS. Keep in mind that we already have two
> real consumers: NVMe and RPC-with-TLS; and possibly QUIC.
> 
> You asserted earlier that creating sockets in user space "scales
> better" but did not provide any data. Can we see some? How well
> does it need to scale for storage protocols that use long-lived
> connections?

I meant scale with the number of possible crypto protocols, 
I mentioned three there.

> Also, why has no-one mentioned the NBD on TLS implementation to
> us before? I will try to review that code soon.

Oops, maybe that thing had never seen the light of a public mailing
list then :S Dave Watson was working on it at Facebook, but he since
moved to greener pastures.

> > This set does not even have selftests.  
> 
> I can include unit tests with the prototype. Someone needs to
> educate me on what is the preferred unit test paradigm for this
> type of subsystem. Examples in the current kernel code base would
> help too.

Whatever level of testing makes you as an engineer comfortable
with saying "this test suite is sufficient"? ;)

For TLS we have tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c - it's hardly
an example of excellence but, you know, it catches bugs here and 
there.

> > Plus there are more protocols being actively worked on (QUIC, PSP etc.)
> > Having per ULP special sauce to invoke a user space helper is not the
> > paradigm we chose, and the time as inopportune as ever to change that.  
> 
> When we started discussing TLS handshake requirements with some
> community members several years ago, creating the socket in
> kernel and passing it up to a user agent was the suggested design.
> Has that recommendation changed since then?

Hm, do you remember who you discussed it with? Would be good 
to loop those folks in. I wasn't involved at the beginning of the 
TLS work, I know second hand that HW offload and nbd were involved 
and that the design went thru some serious re-architecting along 
the way. In the beginning there was a separate socket for control
records, and that was nacked.

But also (and perhaps most importantly) I'm not really objecting 
to creating the socket in the kernel. I'm primarily objecting to 
a second type of a special TLS socket which has TLS semantics.

> I'd prefer an in-kernel handshake implementation over a user
> space one (even one that is sharable amongst transports and ULPs
> as my proposal is intended to be). However, so far we've been told
> that an in-kernel handshake implementation is a non-starter.
> 
> But in the abstract, we agree that having a single TLS handshake
> mechanism for kernel consumers is preferable.

For some definition of "we" which doesn't not include me?

  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-26 23:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-18 16:49 [PATCH RFC 0/5] Implement a TLS handshake upcall Chuck Lever
2022-04-18 16:49 ` [PATCH RFC 1/5] net: Add distinct sk_psock field Chuck Lever
2022-04-21  7:35   ` Hannes Reinecke
2022-07-13  4:46     ` Hawkins Jiawei
2022-07-13  4:46       ` Hawkins Jiawei
2022-04-18 16:49 ` [PATCH RFC 2/5] tls: build proto after context has been initialized Chuck Lever
2022-04-25 17:11   ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-04-25 17:51     ` Chuck Lever III
2022-05-20 16:39   ` Chuck Lever III
2022-04-18 16:49 ` [PATCH RFC 3/5] net/tls: Add an AF_TLSH address family Chuck Lever
2022-04-21  7:35   ` Hannes Reinecke
2022-04-18 16:49 ` [PATCH RFC 4/5] net/tls: Add support for PF_TLSH (a TLS handshake listener) Chuck Lever
2022-04-21  7:36   ` Hannes Reinecke
2022-04-25 17:14   ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-04-26  9:43     ` Hannes Reinecke
2022-04-26 14:29       ` Sagi Grimberg
2022-04-26 15:02         ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-04-26 15:58           ` Hannes Reinecke
2022-04-27  0:03             ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-04-27 15:24               ` Chuck Lever III
2022-04-28  7:26               ` Hannes Reinecke
2022-04-28 13:30                 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-04-28 13:51                   ` Hannes Reinecke
2022-04-28 14:09                     ` Benjamin Coddington
2022-04-28 21:08                       ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-05-24 10:05                         ` [ovs-dev] " Ilya Maximets
2022-04-26 14:55       ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-04-26 13:48     ` Chuck Lever III
2022-04-26 14:55       ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-04-26 15:58         ` Chuck Lever III
2022-04-26 23:47           ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2022-04-27 14:42             ` Chuck Lever III
2022-04-27 23:53               ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-04-28  1:29                 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-04-28 21:08                   ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-04-28 21:54                     ` Chuck Lever III
2022-04-28  8:49   ` Boris Pismenny
2022-04-28 13:12     ` Simo Sorce
2022-04-29 15:19       ` Chuck Lever III
2022-04-28 15:24     ` Chuck Lever III
2022-04-29  6:25       ` Hannes Reinecke
2022-04-18 16:49 ` [PATCH RFC 5/5] net/tls: Add observability for AF_TLSH sockets Chuck Lever
2022-04-21  7:36   ` Hannes Reinecke

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20220426164712.068e365c@kernel.org \
    --to=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=ak@tempesta-tech.com \
    --cc=borisp@nvidia.com \
    --cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=simo@redhat.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH RFC 4/5] net/tls: Add support for PF_TLSH (a TLS handshake listener)' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.