Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] nvme: Implement In-Band authentication
To:     Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@vlnb.net>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@wdc.com>, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210716110428.9727-1-hare@suse.de>
 <20210716110428.9727-7-hare@suse.de>
 <bd588839-8acc-91cf-5946-f702007b0c7d@grimberg.me>
 <d74c29b8-1c64-e439-9015-6c424baad3d3@suse.de>
 <a3098fb2-2127-6f81-97e9-ab5de503508e@vlnb.net>
From:   Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Message-ID: <14949004-6ef5-b8e5-f133-c50fe311a693@suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 21 Jul 2021 08:12:04 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a3098fb2-2127-6f81-97e9-ab5de503508e@vlnb.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 7/20/21 10:28 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> 
> On 7/18/21 3:21 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 7/17/21 9:22 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>>> Implement NVMe-oF In-Band authentication. This patch adds two new
>>>> fabric options 'dhchap_key' to specify the PSK
>>>
>>> pre-shared-key.
>>>
>>> Also, we need a sysfs knob to rotate the key that will trigger
>>> re-authentication or even a simple controller(s-plural) reset, so this
>>> should go beyond just the connection string.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, re-authentication currently is not implemented. I first wanted to
>> get this patchset out such that we can settle on the userspace interface
>> (both from host and target).
>> I'll have to think on how we should handle authentication; one of the
>> really interesting cases would be when one malicious admin will _just_
>> send a 'negotiate' command to the controller. As per spec the controller
>> will be waiting for an 'authentication receive' command to send a
>> 'challenge' payload back to the host. But that will never come, so as it
>> stands currently the controller is required to abort the connection.
>> Not very nice.
> 
> Yes, in this case after some reasonable timeout (I would suggest 10-15
> seconds) the controller expected to abort connection and clean up all
> allocated resources.
> 
> To handle DoS possibility to make too many such "orphan" negotiations,
> hence consume all controller memory, some additional handling is needed.
> For simplicity as a first step I would suggest to have a global limit on
> number of currently being authenticated connections.
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> +    chap->key = nvme_auth_extract_secret(ctrl->opts->dhchap_secret,
>>>> +                         &chap->key_len);
>>>> +    if (IS_ERR(chap->key)) {
>>>> +        ret = PTR_ERR(chap->key);
>>>> +        chap->key = NULL;
>>>> +        return ret;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (key_hash == 0)
>>>> +        return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +    hmac_name = nvme_auth_hmac_name(key_hash);
>>>> +    if (!hmac_name) {
>>>> +        pr_debug("Invalid key hash id %d\n", key_hash);
>>>> +        return -EKEYREJECTED;
>>>> +    }
>>>
>>> Why does the user influence the hmac used? isn't that is driven
>>> by the susbsystem?
>>>
>>> I don't think that the user should choose in this level.
>>>
>>
>> That is another weirdness of the spec.
>> The _secret_ will be hashed with a specific function, and that function
>> is stated in the transport representation.
>> (Cf section "DH-HMAC-CHAP Security Requirements").
>> This is _not_ the hash function used by the authentication itself, which
>> will be selected by the protocol.
>> So it's not the user here, but rather the transport specification of the
>> key which selects the hash algorithm.
> 
> Yes, good catch. It looks as a minor errata material to specify that
> hash function here is implementation specific.
> 
> I would suggest to just hardcode SHA512 here. Users don't have to be
> confused by this.
> 
Sure, can do. My reasoning was that the target absolutely has to support
the hash functions specified in the PSK, so that will be a safe bet to
choose for the hash function in the protocol itself.
(Any other hash function _might_ not be preset on the target.)
But if the PSK does not specify a hash the target need to pick one; and
for that of course we can use SHA512.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		           Kernel Storage Architect
hare@suse.de			                  +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: Felix Imendörffer