Hi Leonard,
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 02:50, Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[..]
+/* Representation of a Master Key Tuple as per RFC5925 */
+struct tcp_authopt_key_info {
+ struct hlist_node node;
+ /* Local identifier */
+ u32 local_id;
There is no local_id in RFC5925, what's that?
An MKT is identified by (send_id, recv_id), together with
(src_addr/src_port, dst_addr/dst_port).
Why introducing something new to already complicated RFC?
+ u32 flags;
+ /* Wire identifiers */
+ u8 send_id, recv_id;
+ u8 alg_id;
+ u8 keylen;
+ u8 key[TCP_AUTHOPT_MAXKEYLEN];
+ struct rcu_head rcu;
This is unaligned and will add padding.
I wonder if it's also worth saving some bytes by something like
struct tcp_ao_key *key;
With
struct tcp_ao_key {
u8 keylen;
u8 key[0];
};
Hmm?
+ struct sockaddr_storage addr;
+};
+
+/* Per-socket information regarding tcp_authopt */
+struct tcp_authopt_info {
+ /* List of tcp_authopt_key_info */
+ struct hlist_head head;
+ u32 flags;
+ u32 src_isn;
+ u32 dst_isn;
+ struct rcu_head rcu;
Ditto, adds padding on 64-bit.
[..]
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h
@@ -126,10 +126,12 @@ enum {
#define TCP_INQ 36 /* Notify bytes available to read as a cmsg on read */
#define TCP_CM_INQ TCP_INQ
#define TCP_TX_DELAY 37 /* delay outgoing packets by XX usec */
+#define TCP_AUTHOPT 38 /* TCP Authentication Option (RFC2385) */
+#define TCP_AUTHOPT_KEY 39 /* TCP Authentication Option update key (RFC2385) */
RFC2385 is md5 one.
Also, should there be TCP_AUTHOPT_ADD_KEY, TCP_AUTHOPT_DELTE_KEY
instead of using flags inside setsocketopt()? (no hard feelings)
[..]
+/**
+ * enum tcp_authopt_flag - flags for `tcp_authopt.flags`
+ */
+enum tcp_authopt_flag {
+ /**
+ * @TCP_AUTHOPT_FLAG_REJECT_UNEXPECTED:
+ * Configure behavior of segments with TCP-AO coming from hosts for which no
+ * key is configured. The default recommended by RFC is to silently accept
+ * such connections.
+ */
+ TCP_AUTHOPT_FLAG_REJECT_UNEXPECTED = (1 << 2),
+};
+
+/**
+ * struct tcp_authopt - Per-socket options related to TCP Authentication Option
+ */
+struct tcp_authopt {
+ /** @flags: Combination of &enum tcp_authopt_flag */
+ __u32 flags;
+};
I'm not sure what's the use of enum here, probably: > #define TCP_AUTHOPT_FLAG_REJECT_UNEXPECTED BIT(2)
[..]
+struct tcp_authopt_key {
+ /** @flags: Combination of &enum tcp_authopt_key_flag */
+ __u32 flags;
+ /** @local_id: Local identifier */
+ __u32 local_id;
+ /** @send_id: keyid value for send */
+ __u8 send_id;
+ /** @recv_id: keyid value for receive */
+ __u8 recv_id;
+ /** @alg: One of &enum tcp_authopt_alg */
+ __u8 alg;
+ /** @keylen: Length of the key buffer */
+ __u8 keylen;
+ /** @key: Secret key */
+ __u8 key[TCP_AUTHOPT_MAXKEYLEN];
+ /**
+ * @addr: Key is only valid for this address
+ *
+ * Ignored unless TCP_AUTHOPT_KEY_ADDR_BIND flag is set
+ */
+ struct __kernel_sockaddr_storage addr;
+};
It'll be an ABI if this is accepted. As it is - it can't support RFC5925 fully.
Extending syscall ABI is painful. I think, even the initial ABI *must* support
all possible features of the RFC.
In other words, there must be src_addr, src_port, dst_addr and dst_port.
I can see from docs you've written you don't want to support a mix of different
addr/port MKTs, so you can return -EINVAL or -ENOTSUPP for any value
but zero.
This will create an ABI that can be later extended to fully support RFC.
The same is about key: I don't think you need to define/use tcp_authopt_alg.
Just use algo name - that way TCP-AO will automatically be able to use
any algo supported by crypto engine.
See how xfrm does it, e.g.:
struct xfrm_algo_auth {
char alg_name[64];
unsigned int alg_key_len; /* in bits */
unsigned int alg_trunc_len; /* in bits */
char alg_key[0];
};
So you can let a user chose maclen instead of hard-coding it.
Much more extendable than what you propose.
[..]
+#ifdef CONFIG_TCP_AUTHOPT
+ case TCP_AUTHOPT: {
+ struct tcp_authopt info;
+
+ if (get_user(len, optlen))
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ lock_sock(sk);
+ tcp_get_authopt_val(sk, &info);
+ release_sock(sk);
+
+ len = min_t(unsigned int, len, sizeof(info));
+ if (put_user(len, optlen))
+ return -EFAULT;
+ if (copy_to_user(optval, &info, len))
+ return -EFAULT;
+ return 0;
+ }
I'm pretty sure it's not a good choice to write partly tcp_authopt.
And a user has no way to check what's the correct len on this kernel.
Instead of len = min_t(unsigned int, len, sizeof(info)), it should be
if (len != sizeof(info))
return -EINVAL;
[..]
+int tcp_set_authopt(struct sock *sk, sockptr_t optval, unsigned int optlen)
+{
+ struct tcp_authopt opt;
+ struct tcp_authopt_info *info;
+
+ WARN_ON(!lockdep_sock_is_held(sk));
sock_owned_by_me(sk)
+ /* If userspace optlen is too short fill the rest with zeros */
+ if (optlen > sizeof(opt))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ memset(&opt, 0, sizeof(opt));
it's 4 bytes, why not just (optlen != sizeof(opt))?
[..]
+int tcp_get_authopt_val(struct sock *sk, struct tcp_authopt *opt)
+{
+ struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
+ struct tcp_authopt_info *info;
+
+ WARN_ON(!lockdep_sock_is_held(sk));
sock_owned_by_me(sk)
[..]
+int tcp_set_authopt_key(struct sock *sk, sockptr_t optval, unsigned int optlen)
+{
+ struct tcp_authopt_key opt;
+ struct tcp_authopt_info *info;
+ struct tcp_authopt_key_info *key_info;
+
+ /* If userspace optlen is too short fill the rest with zeros */
+ if (optlen > sizeof(opt))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ memset(&opt, 0, sizeof(opt));
+ if (copy_from_sockptr(&opt, optval, optlen))
+ return -EFAULT;
Again, not a good practice to zero-extend struct. Enforce proper size
with -EINVAL.
[..]
+ /* Initialize tcp_authopt_info if not already set */
+ info = __tcp_authopt_info_get_or_create(sk);
+ if (IS_ERR(info))
+ return PTR_ERR(info);
+
+ /* check key family */
+ if (opt.flags & TCP_AUTHOPT_KEY_ADDR_BIND) {
+ if (sk->sk_family != opt.addr.ss_family)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
Probably, can be in the reverse order, so that
__tcp_authopt_info_get_or_create()
won't allocate memory.
+ /* If an old value exists for same local_id it is deleted */
+ key_info = __tcp_authopt_key_info_lookup(sk, info, opt.local_id);
+ if (key_info)
+ tcp_authopt_key_del(sk, info, key_info);
+ key_info = sock_kmalloc(sk, sizeof(*key_info), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO);
+ if (!key_info)
+ return -ENOMEM;
1. You don't need sock_kmalloc() together with tcp_authopt_key_del().
It just frees the memory and allocates it back straight away - no
sense in doing that.
2. I think RFC says you must not allow a user to change an existing key:
MKT parameters are not changed. Instead, new MKTs can be installed, and a connection
can change which MKT it uses.
IIUC, it means that one can't just change an existing MKT, but one can
remove and later
add MKT with the same (send_id, recv_id, src_addr/port, dst_addr/port).
So, a reasonable thing to do:
if (key_info)
return -EEXIST.