From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: "Kevin Wolf" <kwolf@redhat.com>,
"Daniel P.Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
"Max Reitz" <mreitz@redhat.com>, "John Snow" <jsnow@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: QAPI schema for desired state of LUKS keyslots (was: [PATCH 02/13] qcrypto-luks: implement encryption key management)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 14:15:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01d311ec104f7cc494875d3fb64c7d73657586ad.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6e42d2ac5a761548ed3b4fdf7382441646839a9b.camel@redhat.com>
On Tue, 2020-03-03 at 11:18 +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 15:51 +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Review of this patch led to a lengthy QAPI schema design discussion.
> > Let me try to condense it into a concrete proposal.
> >
> > This is about the QAPI schema, and therefore about QMP. The
> > human-friendly interface is out of scope. Not because it's not
> > important (it clearly is!), only because we need to *focus* to have a
> > chance at success.
> >
> > I'm going to include a few design options. I'll mark them "Option:".
> >
> > The proposed "amend" interface takes a specification of desired state,
> > and figures out how to get from here to there by itself. LUKS keyslots
> > are one part of desired state.
> >
> > We commonly have eight LUKS keyslots. Each keyslot is either active or
> > inactive. An active keyslot holds a secret.
> >
> > Goal: a QAPI type for specifying desired state of LUKS keyslots.
> >
> > Proposal:
> >
> > { 'enum': 'LUKSKeyslotState',
> > 'data': [ 'active', 'inactive' ] }
> >
> > { 'struct': 'LUKSKeyslotActive',
> > 'data': { 'secret': 'str',
> > '*iter-time': 'int } }
> >
> > { 'struct': 'LUKSKeyslotInactive',
> > 'data': { '*old-secret': 'str' } }
> >
> > { 'union': 'LUKSKeyslotAmend',
> > 'base': { '*keyslot': 'int',
> > 'state': 'LUKSKeyslotState' }
> > 'discriminator': 'state',
> > 'data': { 'active': 'LUKSKeyslotActive',
> > 'inactive': 'LUKSKeyslotInactive' } }
> >
> > LUKSKeyslotAmend specifies desired state for a set of keyslots.
> >
> > Four cases:
> >
> > * @state is "active"
> >
> > Desired state is active holding the secret given by @secret. Optional
> > @iter-time tweaks key stretching.
> >
> > The keyslot is chosen either by the user or by the system, as follows:
> >
> > - @keyslot absent
> >
> > One inactive keyslot chosen by the system. If none exists, error.
> >
> > - @keyslot present
> >
> > The keyslot given by @keyslot.
> >
> > If it's already active holding @secret, no-op. Rationale: the
> > current state is the desired state.
> >
> > If it's already active holding another secret, error. Rationale:
> > update in place is unsafe.
> >
> > Option: delete the "already active holding @secret" case. Feels
> > inelegant to me. Okay if it makes things substantially simpler.
> >
> > * @state is "inactive"
> >
> > Desired state is inactive.
> >
> > Error if the current state has active keyslots, but the desired state
> > has none.
> >
> > The user choses the keyslot by number and/or by the secret it holds,
> > as follows:
> >
> > - @keyslot absent, @old-secret present
> >
> > All active keyslots holding @old-secret. If none exists, error.
> >
> > - @keyslot present, @old-secret absent
> >
> > The keyslot given by @keyslot.
> >
> > If it's already inactive, no-op. Rationale: the current state is
> > the desired state.
> >
> > - both @keyslot and @old-secret present
> >
> > The keyslot given by keyslot.
> >
> > If it's inactive or holds a secret other than @old-secret, error.
> >
> > Option: error regardless of @old-secret, if that makes things
> > simpler.
> >
> > - neither @keyslot not @old-secret present
> >
> > All keyslots. Note that this will error out due to "desired state
> > has no active keyslots" unless the current state has none, either.
> >
> > Option: error out unconditionally.
> >
> > Note that LUKSKeyslotAmend can specify only one desired state for
> > commonly just one keyslot. Rationale: this satisfies practical needs.
> > An array of LUKSKeyslotAmend could specify desired state for all
> > keyslots. However, multiple array elements could then apply to the same
> > slot. We'd have to specify how to resolve such conflicts, and we'd have
> > to code up conflict detection. Not worth it.
> >
> > Examples:
> >
> > * Add a secret to some free keyslot:
> >
> > { "state": "active", "secret": "CIA/GRU/MI6" }
> >
> > * Deactivate all keyslots holding a secret:
> >
> > { "state": "inactive", "old-secret": "CIA/GRU/MI6" }
> >
> > * Add a secret to a specific keyslot:
> >
> > { "state": "active", "secret": "CIA/GRU/MI6", "keyslot": 0 }
> >
> > * Deactivate a specific keyslot:
> >
> > { "state": "inactive", "keyslot": 0 }
> >
> > Possibly less dangerous:
> >
> > { "state": "inactive", "keyslot": 0, "old-secret": "CIA/GRU/MI6" }
> >
> > Option: Make use of Max's patches to support optional union tag with
> > default value to let us default @state to "active". I doubt this makes
> > much of a difference in QMP. A human-friendly interface should probably
> > be higher level anyway (Daniel pointed to cryptsetup).
> >
> > Option: LUKSKeyslotInactive member @old-secret could also be named
> > @secret. I don't care.
> >
> > Option: delete @keyslot. It provides low-level slot access.
> > Complicates the interface. Fine if we need lov-level slot access. Do
> > we?
> >
> > I apologize for the time it has taken me to write this.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I tried today to implement this but I hit a very unpleasant roadblock:
>
> Since QCrypto is generic (even though it only implements currently luks for raw/qcow2 usage,
> and legacy qcow2 aes encryption), I still can't assume that this is always the case.
> Thus I implemented the Qcrypto amend API in this way:
>
> ##
> # @QCryptoBlockAmendOptions:
> #
> # The options that are available for all encryption formats
> # when amending encryption settings
> #
> # Since: 5.0
> ##
> { 'union': 'QCryptoBlockAmendOptions',
> 'base': 'QCryptoBlockOptionsBase',
> 'discriminator': 'format',
> 'data': {
> 'luks': 'QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS' } }
>
> However the QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS is a union too to be in line with the API proposal,
> but that is not supported on QAPI level and after I and Markus talked about we are not sure
> that it is worth it to implement this support only for this case.
>
> So far I see the following solutions
>
>
> 1. Drop the QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS union for now.
> This will bring the schema pretty much to be the same as my original proposal,
> however the API will be the same thus once nested unions are implemented this union
> can always be introduced again.
>
> 2. Drop the QCryptoBlockAmendOptions union. Strictly speaking this union is not needed
> since it only has one member anyway, however this union is used both by qcow2 QAPI scheme,
> so that it doesn't hardcode an encryption format for amend just like it doesn't for creation,
> (this can be hardcoded for now as well for now as long as we don't have more amendable encryption formats).
> However I also use the QCryptoBlockAmendOptions in C code in QCrypto API thus it will be ugly to use the
> QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS instead.
>
>
> 3. Make QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS a struct and add to it a nested member with new union type
> (say QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS1) which will be exactly as QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS was.
>
> This IMHO is even uglier since it changes the API (which we can't later fix) and adds both a dummy struct
> field and a dummy struct name.
>
> I personally vote 1.
Any update?
>
> Best regards,
> Maxim Levitsky
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-05 12:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-14 19:33 [PATCH 00/13] LUKS: encryption slot management using amend interface Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 01/13] qcrypto: add generic infrastructure for crypto options amendment Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-28 16:59 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-29 17:49 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 02/13] qcrypto-luks: implement encryption key management Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-21 7:54 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-21 13:13 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-28 17:11 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-28 17:32 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-29 17:54 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-30 12:38 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-30 12:53 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-30 14:23 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-30 14:30 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-30 14:53 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-30 14:47 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-30 15:01 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-30 16:37 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-05 8:24 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-05 9:30 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-02-05 10:03 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-05 11:02 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-02-05 14:31 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-06 13:44 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-06 13:49 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-02-06 14:20 ` Max Reitz
2020-02-05 10:23 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-02-05 14:31 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-06 13:20 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-06 13:36 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-02-06 14:25 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-02-06 15:19 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-06 15:23 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-30 15:45 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-28 17:21 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-30 12:58 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-02-15 14:51 ` QAPI schema for desired state of LUKS keyslots (was: [PATCH 02/13] qcrypto-luks: implement encryption key management) Markus Armbruster
2020-02-16 8:05 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-02-17 6:45 ` QAPI schema for desired state of LUKS keyslots Markus Armbruster
2020-02-17 8:19 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-02-17 10:37 ` QAPI schema for desired state of LUKS keyslots (was: [PATCH 02/13] qcrypto-luks: implement encryption key management) Kevin Wolf
2020-02-17 11:07 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-02-24 14:46 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-02-24 14:50 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-02-17 12:28 ` QAPI schema for desired state of LUKS keyslots Markus Armbruster
2020-02-17 12:44 ` Eric Blake
2020-02-24 14:43 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-02-24 14:45 ` QAPI schema for desired state of LUKS keyslots (was: [PATCH 02/13] qcrypto-luks: implement encryption key management) Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-02-25 12:15 ` Max Reitz
2020-02-25 16:48 ` QAPI schema for desired state of LUKS keyslots Markus Armbruster
2020-02-25 17:00 ` Max Reitz
2020-02-26 7:28 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-26 9:18 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-02-25 17:18 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-03-03 9:18 ` QAPI schema for desired state of LUKS keyslots (was: [PATCH 02/13] qcrypto-luks: implement encryption key management) Maxim Levitsky
2020-03-05 12:15 ` Maxim Levitsky [this message]
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 03/13] block: amend: add 'force' option Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 04/13] block: amend: separate amend and create options for qemu-img Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-28 17:23 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-30 15:54 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 05/13] block/crypto: rename two functions Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 06/13] block/crypto: implement the encryption key management Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-28 17:27 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-30 16:08 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 07/13] qcow2: extend qemu-img amend interface with crypto options Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-28 17:30 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-30 16:09 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 08/13] iotests: filter few more luks specific create options Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-28 17:36 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-30 16:12 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 09/13] qemu-iotests: qemu-img tests for luks key management Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 10/13] block: add generic infrastructure for x-blockdev-amend qmp command Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-21 7:59 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-21 13:58 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 11/13] block/crypto: implement blockdev-amend Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-28 17:40 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-30 16:24 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 12/13] block/qcow2: " Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-28 17:41 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-14 19:33 ` [PATCH 13/13] iotests: add tests for blockdev-amend Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 21:16 ` [PATCH 00/13] LUKS: encryption slot management using amend interface no-reply
2020-01-16 14:01 ` Maxim Levitsky
2020-01-14 21:17 ` no-reply
2020-01-16 14:19 ` Maxim Levitsky
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=01d311ec104f7cc494875d3fb64c7d73657586ad.camel@redhat.com \
--to=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=jsnow@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=mreitz@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/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).