netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kproxy: Kernel Proxy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACby=pm5Qn4byjoDfCOo9Ty9AUpe4vzv66M=khExn7y9GdKMwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:49:35 -0700
From:   Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kproxy: Kernel Proxy

On 29 June 2017 at 16:21, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
> I think the main part of that discussion was around stream parser
> which is needed for message delineation. For a 1:1 proxy,  KCM is
> probably overkill (the whole KCM data path and lock becomes
> superfluous). Also, there's no concept of creating a whole message
> before routing it, in the 1:1 case we should let the message pass
> through once it's cleared by the filter (this is the strparser change
> I referred to). As I mentioned, for L7 load balancing we would want a
> multiplexor probably also M:N, but the structure is different since
> there's still no user facing sockets, they're all TCP for instance.
> IMO, the 1:1 proxy case is compelling to solve in itself...

I see. I was definitely thinking m:n. We should definitely evaluate
whether it makes sense to have a specific 1:1 implementation if we
need m:n anyway. For L7 LB, m:n seems obvious as a particular L4
connection may act as a transport for multiple requests bidirectional.
KCM looks like a good starting point for that.

When I talked about enqueueing entire messages, the main concern is to
buffer up the payload after the TLS handshake to the point to where a
forwarding decision can be made. I would definitely not advocate to
buffer entire messages before starting to forward.