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?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-26 23:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ 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
2022-04-18 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 \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).