[PATCH v9 net-next 23/23] Documentation/tcp: Add TCP-AO documentation

[Dmitry Safonov]

It has Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on RFC 5925 - I found it very
useful answering those before writing the actual code. It provides answers
to common questions that arise on a quick read of the RFC, as well as how
they were answered. There's also comparison to TCP-MD5 option,
evaluation of per-socket vs in-kernel-DB approaches and description of
uAPI provided.

Hopefully, it will be as useful for reviewing the code as it was for writing.

Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Safonov <dima@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 Documentation/networking/index.rst  |   1 +
 Documentation/networking/tcp_ao.rst | 434 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 435 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/networking/tcp_ao.rst

diff --git a/Documentation/networking/index.rst b/Documentation/networking/index.rst
index 5b75c3f7a137..69c1e53ef88b 100644
--- a/Documentation/networking/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/networking/index.rst
@@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ Contents:
    sysfs-tagging
    tc-actions-env-rules
    tc-queue-filters
+   tcp_ao
    tcp-thin
    team
    timestamping
diff --git a/Documentation/networking/tcp_ao.rst b/Documentation/networking/tcp_ao.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..cfa13a0748a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/networking/tcp_ao.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,434 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+========================================================
+TCP Authentication Option Linux implementation (RFC5925)
+========================================================
+
+TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) provides a TCP extension aimed at verifying
+segments between trusted peers. It adds a new TCP header option with
+a Message Authentication Code (MAC). MACs are produced from the content
+of a TCP segment using a hashing function with a password known to both peers.
+The intent of TCP-AO is to deprecate TCP-MD5 providing better security,
+key rotation and support for variety of hashing algorithms.
+
+1. Introduction
+===============
+
+.. list-table:: Short and Limited Comparison of TCP-AO and TCP-MD5
+
+   * -
+     - TCP-MD5
+     - TCP-AO
+   * - Supported hashing algorithms
+     - MD5 (cryptographically weak).
+     - Must support HMAC-SHA1 (chosen-prefix attacks) and CMAC-AES-128
+       (only side-channel attacks). May support any hashing algorithm.
+   * - Length of MACs (bytes)
+     - 16
+     - Typically 12-16. Possible other variants that fit TCP header.
+   * - Number of keys per TCP connection
+     - 1
+     - Many
+   * - Possibility to change an active key
+     - Non-practical (both peers have to change them during MSL)
+     - Supported by protocol
+   * - Protection against ICMP 'hard errors'
+     - No
+     - Yes: ignoring them by default on established connections
+   * - Protection against traffic-crossing attack
+     - No
+     - Yes: pseudo-header includes TCP ports.
+   * - Protection against replayed TCP segments
+     - No
+     - Sequence Number Extension (SNE) and Initial Sequence Numbers (ISN)
+   * - Supports Connectionless Resets
+     - Yes
+     - No. ISNs+SNEs are needed to correctly sign RST.
+   * - Standards
+     - RFC 2385
+     - RFC 5925, RFC 5926
+
+1.1 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) with references to RFC 5925
+----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Q: Can either SendID or RecvID be non-unique for the same 4-tuple
+(srcaddr, srcport, dstaddr, dstport)?
+
+A: No [3.1]::
+
+   >> The IDs of MKTs MUST NOT overlap where their TCP connection
+   identifiers overlap.
+
+Q: Can Master Key Tuple (MKT) for an active connection be removed?
+
+A: No, unless it's copied to Transport Control Block (TCB) [3.1]::
+
+   It is presumed that an MKT affecting a particular connection cannot
+   be destroyed during an active connection -- or, equivalently, that
+   its parameters are copied to an area local to the connection (i.e.,
+   instantiated) and so changes would affect only new connections.
+
+Q: If an old MKT needs to be deleted, how should it be done in order
+to not remove it for an active connection? (As it can be still in use
+at any moment later)
+
+A: Not specified by RFC 5925, seems to be a problem for key management
+to ensure that no one uses such MKT before trying to remove it.
+
+Q: Can an old MKT exist forever and be used by another peer?
+
+A: It can, it's a key management task to decide when to remove an old key [6.1]::
+
+   Deciding when to start using a key is a performance issue. Deciding
+   when to remove an MKT is a security issue. Invalid MKTs are expected
+   to be removed. TCP-AO provides no mechanism to coordinate their removal,
+   as we consider this a key management operation.
+
+also [6.1]::
+
+   The only way to avoid reuse of previously used MKTs is to remove the MKT
+   when it is no longer considered permitted.
+
+Linux TCP-AO will try its best to prevent you from removing a key that's
+being used, considering it a key management failure. But sine keeping
+an outdated key may become a security issue and as a peer may
+unintentionally prevent the removal of an old key by always setting
+it as RNextKeyID - a forced key removal mechanism is provided, where
+userspace has to supply KeyID to use instead of the one that's being removed
+and the kernel will atomically delete the old key, even if the peer is
+still requesting it. There are no guarantees for force-delete as the peer
+may yet not have the new key - the TCP connection may just break.
+Alternatively, one may choose to shut down the socket.
+
+Q: What happens when a packet is received on a new connection with no known
+MKT's RecvID?
+
+A: RFC 5925 specifies that by default it is accepted with a warning logged, but
+the behaviour can be configured by the user [7.5.1.a]::
+
+   If the segment is a SYN, then this is the first segment of a new
+   connection. Find the matching MKT for this segment, using the segment's
+   socket pair and its TCP-AO KeyID, matched against the MKT's TCP connection
+   identifier and the MKT's RecvID.
+
+      i. If there is no matching MKT, remove TCP-AO from the segment.
+         Proceed with further TCP handling of the segment.
+         NOTE: this presumes that connections that do not match any MKT
+         should be silently accepted, as noted in Section 7.3.
+
+[7.3]::
+
+   >> A TCP-AO implementation MUST allow for configuration of the behavior
+   of segments with TCP-AO but that do not match an MKT. The initial default
+   of this configuration SHOULD be to silently accept such connections.
+   If this is not the desired case, an MKT can be included to match such
+   connections, or the connection can indicate that TCP-AO is required.
+   Alternately, the configuration can be changed to discard segments with
+   the AO option not matching an MKT.
+
+[10.2.b]::
+
+   Connections not matching any MKT do not require TCP-AO. Further, incoming
+   segments with TCP-AO are not discarded solely because they include
+   the option, provided they do not match any MKT.
+
+Note that Linux TCP-AO implementation differs in this aspect. Currently, TCP-AO
+segments with unknown key signatures are discarded with warnings logged.
+
+Q: Does the RFC imply centralized kernel key management in any way?
+(i.e. that a key on all connections MUST be rotated at the same time?)
+
+A: Not specified. MKTs can be managed in userspace, the only relevant part to
+key changes is [7.3]::
+
+   >> All TCP segments MUST be checked against the set of MKTs for matching
+   TCP connection identifiers.
+
+Q: What happens when RNextKeyID requested by a peer is unknown? Should
+the connection be reset?
+
+A: It should not, no action needs to be performed [7.5.2.e]::
+
+   ii. If they differ, determine whether the RNextKeyID MKT is ready.
+
+       1. If the MKT corresponding to the segment’s socket pair and RNextKeyID
+       is not available, no action is required (RNextKeyID of a received
+       segment needs to match the MKT’s SendID).
+
+Q: How current_key is set and when does it change? It is a user-triggered
+change, or is it by a request from the remote peer? Is it set by the user
+explicitly, or by a matching rule?
+
+A: current_key is set by RNextKeyID [6.1]::
+
+   Rnext_key is changed only by manual user intervention or MKT management
+   protocol operation. It is not manipulated by TCP-AO. Current_key is updated
+   by TCP-AO when processing received TCP segments as discussed in the segment
+   processing description in Section 7.5. Note that the algorithm allows
+   the current_key to change to a new MKT, then change back to a previously
+   used MKT (known as "backing up"). This can occur during an MKT change when
+   segments are received out of order, and is considered a feature of TCP-AO,
+   because reordering does not result in drops.
+
+[7.5.2.e.ii]::
+
+   2. If the matching MKT corresponding to the segment’s socket pair and
+   RNextKeyID is available:
+
+      a. Set current_key to the RNextKeyID MKT.
+
+Q: If both peers have multiple MKTs matching the connection's socket pair
+(with different KeyIDs), how should the sender/receiver pick KeyID to use?
+
+A: Some mechanism should pick the "desired" MKT [3.3]::
+
+   Multiple MKTs may match a single outgoing segment, e.g., when MKTs
+   are being changed. Those MKTs cannot have conflicting IDs (as noted
+   elsewhere), and some mechanism must determine which MKT to use for each
+   given outgoing segment.
+
+   >> An outgoing TCP segment MUST match at most one desired MKT, indicated
+   by the segment’s socket pair. The segment MAY match multiple MKTs, provided
+   that exactly one MKT is indicated as desired. Other information in
+   the segment MAY be used to determine the desired MKT when multiple MKTs
+   match; such information MUST NOT include values in any TCP option fields.
+
+Q: Can TCP-MD5 connection migrate to TCP-AO (and vice-versa):
+
+A: No [1]::
+
+   TCP MD5-protected connections cannot be migrated to TCP-AO because TCP MD5
+   does not support any changes to a connection’s security algorithm
+   once established.
+
+Q: If all MKTs are removed on a connection, can it become a non-TCP-AO signed
+connection?
+
+A: [7.5.2] doesn't have the same choice as SYN packet handling in [7.5.1.i]
+that would allow accepting segments without a sign (which would be insecure).
+While switching to non-TCP-AO connection is not prohibited directly, it seems
+what the RFC means. Also, there's a requirement for TCP-AO connections to
+always have one current_key [3.3]::
+
+   TCP-AO requires that every protected TCP segment match exactly one MKT.
+
+[3.3]::
+
+   >> An incoming TCP segment including TCP-AO MUST match exactly one MKT,
+   indicated solely by the segment’s socket pair and its TCP-AO KeyID.
+
+[4.4]::
+
+   One or more MKTs. These are the MKTs that match this connection’s
+   socket pair.
+
+Q: Can a non-TCP-AO connection become a TCP-AO-enabled one?
+
+A: No: for already established non-TCP-AO connection it would be impossible
+to switch using TCP-AO as the traffic key generation requires the initial
+sequence numbers. Paraphrasing, starting using TCP-AO would require
+re-establishing the TCP connection.
+
+2. In-kernel MKTs database vs database in userspace
+===================================================
+
+Linux TCP-AO support is implemented using ``setsockopt()s``, in a similar way
+to TCP-MD5. It means that a userspace application that wants to use TCP-AO
+should perform ``setsockopt()`` on a TCP socket when it wants to add,
+remove or rotate MKTs. This approach moves the key management responsibility
+to userspace as well as decisions on corner cases, i.e. what to do if
+the peer doesn't respect RNextKeyID; moving more code to userspace, especially
+responsible for the policy decisions. Besides, it's flexible and scales well
+(with less locking needed than in the case of an in-kernel database). One also
+should keep in mind that mainly intended users are BGP processes, not any
+random applications, which means that compared to IPsec tunnels,
+no transparency is really needed and modern BGP daemons already have
+``setsockopt()s`` for TCP-MD5 support.
+
+.. list-table:: Considered pros and cons of the approaches
+
+   * -
+     - ``setsockopt()``
+     - in-kernel DB
+   * - Extendability
+     - ``setsockopt()`` commands should be extendable syscalls
+     - netlink messages are simple and extendable
+   * - Required userspace changes
+     - BGP or any application that wants TCP-AO needs to perform
+       ``setsockopt()s`` and do key management
+     - could be transparent as tunnels, providing something like
+       ``ip tcpao [add|delete|show|rotate] key``
+   * - MKTs removal or adding
+     - harder for userspace
+     - harder for kernel
+   * - Dump-ability
+     - ``getsockopt()``
+     - Netlink .dump() callback
+   * - Limits on kernel resources/memory
+     - equal
+     - equal
+   * - Scalability
+     - contention on ``TCP_LISTEN`` sockets
+     - contention on the whole database
+   * - Monitoring & warnings
+     - ``TCP_DIAG``
+     - Same Netlink socket
+   * - Matching of MKTs
+     - Half-problem: only listen sockets
+     - Hard
+
+3. uAPI
+=======
+
+Linux provides a set of ``setsockopt()s`` and ``getsockopt()s`` that let
+userspace manage TCP-AO on a per-socket basis. In order to add/delete MKTs
+``TCP_AO_ADD_KEY`` and ``TCP_AO_DEL_KEY`` TCP socket options must be used
+It is not allowed to add a key on an established non-TCP-AO connection
+as well as to remove the last key from TCP-AO connection.
+
+``setsockopt(TCP_AO_DEL_KEY)`` command may specify ``tcp_ao_del::current_key``
++ ``tcp_ao_del::set_current`` and/or ``tcp_ao_del::rnext``
++ ``tcp_ao_del::set_rnext`` which makes such delete "forced": it
+provides userspace a way to delete a key that's being used and atomically set
+another one instead. This is not intended for normal use and should be used
+only when the peer ignores RNextKeyID and keeps requesting/using an old key.
+It provides a way to force-delete a key that's not trusted but may break
+the TCP-AO connection.
+
+The usual/normal key-rotation can be performed with ``setsockopt(TCP_AO_INFO)``.
+It also provides a uAPI to change per-socket TCP-AO settings, such as
+ignoring ICMPs, as well as clear per-socket TCP-AO packet counters.
+The corresponding ``getsockopt(TCP_AO_INFO)`` can be used to get those
+per-socket TCP-AO settings.
+
+Another useful command is ``getsockopt(TCP_AO_GET_KEYS)``. One can use it
+to list all MKTs on a TCP socket or use a filter to get keys for a specific
+peer and/or sndid/rcvid, VRF L3 interface or get current_key/rnext_key.
+
+To repair TCP-AO connections ``setsockopt(TCP_AO_REPAIR)`` is available,
+provided that the user previously has checkpointed/dumped the socket with
+``getsockopt(TCP_AO_REPAIR)``.
+
+A tip here for scaled TCP_LISTEN sockets, that may have some thousands TCP-AO
+keys, is: use filters in ``getsockopt(TCP_AO_GET_KEYS)`` and asynchronous
+delete with ``setsockopt(TCP_AO_DEL_KEY)``.
+
+Linux TCP-AO also provides a bunch of segment counters that can be helpful
+with troubleshooting/debugging issues. Every MKT has good/bad counters
+that reflect how many packets passed/failed verification.
+Each TCP-AO socket has the following counters:
+- for good segments (properly signed)
+- for bad segments (failed TCP-AO verification)
+- for segments with unknown keys
+- for segments where an AO signature was expected, but wasn't found
+- for the number of ignored ICMPs
+
+TCP-AO per-socket counters are also duplicated with per-netns counters,
+exposed with SNMP. Those are ``TCPAOGood``, ``TCPAOBad``, ``TCPAOKeyNotFound``,
+``TCPAORequired`` and ``TCPAODroppedIcmps``.
+
+RFC 5925 very permissively specifies how TCP port matching can be done for
+MKTs::
+
+   TCP connection identifier. A TCP socket pair, i.e., a local IP
+   address, a remote IP address, a TCP local port, and a TCP remote port.
+   Values can be partially specified using ranges (e.g., 2-30), masks
+   (e.g., 0xF0), wildcards (e.g., "*"), or any other suitable indication.
+
+Currently Linux TCP-AO implementation doesn't provide any TCP port matching.
+Probably, port ranges are the most flexible for uAPI, but so far
+not implemented.
+
+4. ``setsockopt()`` vs ``accept()`` race
+========================================
+
+In contrast with TCP-MD5 established connection which has just one key,
+TCP-AO connections may have many keys, which means that accepted connections
+on a listen socket may have any amount of keys as well. As copying all those
+keys on a first properly signed SYN would make the request socket bigger, that
+would be undesirable. Currently, the implementation doesn't copy keys
+to request sockets, but rather look them up on the "parent" listener socket.
+
+The result is that when userspace removes TCP-AO keys, that may break
+not-yet-established connections on request sockets as well as not removing
+keys from sockets that were already established, but not yet ``accept()``'ed,
+hanging in the accept queue.
+
+The reverse is valid as well: if userspace adds a new key for a peer on
+a listener socket, the established sockets in accept queue won't
+have the new keys.
+
+At this moment, the resolution for the two races:
+``setsockopt(TCP_AO_ADD_KEY)`` vs ``accept()``
+and ``setsockopt(TCP_AO_DEL_KEY)`` vs ``accept()`` is delegated to userspace.
+This means that it's expected that userspace would check the MKTs on the socket
+that was returned by ``accept()`` to verify that any key rotation that
+happened on listen socket is reflected on the newly established connection.
+
+This is a similar "do-nothing" approach to TCP-MD5 from the kernel side and
+may be changed later by introducing new flags to ``tcp_ao_add``
+and ``tcp_ao_del``.
+
+Note that this race is rare for it needs TCP-AO key rotation to happen
+during the 3-way handshake for the new TCP connection.
+
+5. Interaction with TCP-MD5
+===========================
+
+A TCP connection can not migrate between TCP-AO and TCP-MD5 options. The
+established sockets that have either AO or MD5 keys are restricted for
+adding keys of the other option.
+
+For listening sockets the picture is different: BGP server may want to receive
+both TCP-AO and (deprecated) TCP-MD5 clients. As a result, both types of keys
+may be added to TCP_CLOSED or TCP_LISTEN sockets. It's not allowed to add
+different types of keys for the same peer.
+
+6. SNE Linux implementation
+===========================
+
+RFC 5925 [6.2] describes the algorithm of how to extend TCP sequence numbers
+with SNE.  In short: TCP has to track the previous sequence numbers and set
+sne_flag when the current SEQ number rolls over. The flag is cleared when
+both current and previous SEQ numbers cross 0x7fff, which is 32Kb.
+
+In times when sne_flag is set, the algorithm compares SEQ for each packet with
+0x7fff and if it's higher than 32Kb, it assumes that the packet should be
+verified with SNE before the increment. As a result, there's
+this [0; 32Kb] window, when packets with (SNE - 1) can be accepted.
+
+Linux implementation simplifies this a bit: as the network stack already tracks
+the first SEQ byte that ACK is wanted for (snd_una) and the next SEQ byte that
+is wanted (rcv_nxt) - that's enough information for a rough estimation
+on where in the 4GB SEQ number space both sender and receiver are.
+When they roll over to zero, the corresponding SNE gets incremented.
+
+tcp_ao_compute_sne() is called for each TCP-AO segment. It compares SEQ numbers
+from the segment with snd_una or rcv_nxt and fits the result into a 2GB window around them,
+detecting SEQ numbers rolling over. That simplifies the code a lot and only
+requires SNE numbers to be stored on every TCP-AO socket.
+
+The 2GB window at first glance seems much more permissive compared to
+RFC 5926. But that is only used to pick the correct SNE before/after
+a rollover. It allows more TCP segment replays, but yet all regular
+TCP checks in tcp_sequence() are applied on the verified segment.
+So, it trades a bit more permissive acceptance of replayed/retransmitted
+segments for the simplicity of the algorithm and what seems better behaviour
+for large TCP windows.
+
+7. Links
+========
+
+RFC 5925 The TCP Authentication Option
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc5925.txt.pdf
+
+RFC 5926 Cryptographic Algorithms for the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc5926.txt.pdf
+
+Draft "SHA-2 Algorithm for the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)"
+   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nayak-tcp-sha2-03
+
+RFC 2385 Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc2385.txt.pdf
+
+:Author: Dmitry Safonov <dima@xxxxxxxxxx>
-- 
2.41.0