Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:47:12 -0700
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)
Message-ID: <20220426164712.068e365c@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <BA6BB8F6-3A2A-427B-A5D7-30B5F778B7E0@oracle.com>
References: <165030051838.5073.8699008789153780301.stgit@oracle-102.nfsv4.dev>
        <165030059051.5073.16723746870370826608.stgit@oracle-102.nfsv4.dev>
        <20220425101459.15484d17@kernel.org>
        <E8809EC2-D49A-4171-8C88-D5E24FFA4079@oracle.com>
        <20220426075504.18be4ee2@kernel.org>
        <BA6BB8F6-3A2A-427B-A5D7-30B5F778B7E0@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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?