From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
To: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
Cc: "Kevin Wolf" <kwolf@redhat.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
"Maxim Levitsky" <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
"John Snow" <jsnow@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: QAPI schema for desired state of LUKS keyslots
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 08:28:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87imjtajtb.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f6008cc8-e7d2-87a1-384e-eb651cf40ab7@redhat.com> (Max Reitz's message of "Tue, 25 Feb 2020 18:00:27 +0100")
Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> writes:
> On 25.02.20 17:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 15.02.20 15:51, 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' } }
>>>
>>> Looks OK to me. The only thing is that @old-secret kind of works as an
>>> address, just like @keyslot,
>>
>> It does.
>>
>>> so it might also make sense to me to put
>>> @keyslot/@old-secret into a union in the base structure.
>>
>> I'm fine with state-specific extra adressing modes (I better be, I
>> proposed them).
>>
>> I'd also be fine with a single state-independent addressing mode, as
>> long as we can come up with sane semantics. Less flexible when adding
>> states, but we almost certainly won't.
>>
>> Let's see how we could merge my two addressing modes into one.
>>
>> The two are
>>
>> * active
>>
>> keyslot old-secret slot(s) selected
>> absent N/A one inactive slot if exist, else error
>> present N/A the slot given by @keyslot
>
> Oh, I thought that maybe we could use old-secret here, too, for
> modifying the iter-time.
Update in place is unsafe.
> But if old-secret makes no sense for
> to-be-active slots, then there’s little point in putting old-secret in
> the base.
>
> (OTOH, specifying old-secret for to-be-active slots does have a sensible
> meaning; it’s just that we won’t support changing anything about
> already-active slots, except making them inactive. So that might be an
> argument for not making it a syntactic error, but just a semantic error.)
Matter of taste. I like to keep simple things syntactic, and thus
visible in introspection.
> [...]
>
>> Note we we don't really care what "inactive, both absent" does. My
>> proposed semantics are just the most regular I could find. We can
>> therefore resolve the conflict by picking "active, both absent":
>>
>> keyslot old-secret slot(s) selected
>> absent absent one inactive slot if exist, else error
>> present absent the slot given by @keyslot
>> absent present all active slots holding @old-secret
>> present present the slot given by @keyslot, error unless
>> it's active holding @old-secret
>>
>> Changes:
>>
>> * inactive, both absent: changed; we select "one inactive slot" instead of
>> "all slots".
>>
>> "All slots" is a no-op when the current state has no active keyslots,
>> else error.
>>
>> "One inactive slot" is a no-op when the current state has one, else
>> error. Thus, we no-op rather than error in some states.
>>
>> * active, keyslot absent or present, old-secret present: new; selects
>> active slot(s) holding @old-secret, no-op when old-secret == secret,
>> else error (no in place update)
>>
>> Can do. It's differently irregular, and has a few more combinations
>> that are basically useless, which I find unappealing. Matter of taste,
>> I guess.
>>
>> Anyone got strong feelings here?
>
> The only strong feeling I have is that I absolutely don’t have a strong
> feeling about this. :)
>
> As such, I think we should just treat my rambling as such and stick to
> your proposal, since we’ve already gathered support for it.
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-26 7:29 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 [this message]
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
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=87imjtajtb.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org \
--to=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=jsnow@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=mlevitsk@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).