Message-ID: <6660c673921ff_35916d294ef@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 16:11:31 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 pabeni@...hat.com, 
 borisp@...dia.com, 
 gal@...dia.com, 
 cratiu@...dia.com, 
 rrameshbabu@...dia.com, 
 steffen.klassert@...unet.com, 
 tariqt@...dia.com, 
 mingtao@...a.com, 
 knekritz@...a.com, 
 Lance Richardson <lance604@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 01/15] psp: add documentation

Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2024 09:56:42 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > > If one peer can enter the state where it drops all plaintext, while
> > > > the other decides to close the connection before completing the
> > > > upgrade, and thus sends a plaintext FIN.
> > > > 
> > > > If (big if) that can happen, then the connection cannot be cleanly
> > > > closed.  
> > > 
> > > Hm. And we can avoid this by only enforcing encryption of data-less
> > > segments once we've seen some encrypted data?  
> > 
> > That would help. It may also be needed to accept a pure ACK right at
> > the upgrade seqno. Depends on the upgrade process.
> > 
> > Which may be worth documenting explicitly: the system call and network
> > packet exchange from when one peer initiates (by generating its local
> > key) until the connection is fully encrypted. That also allows poking
> > at the various edge cases that may happen if packets are lost, or when
> > actions can race.
> 
> Dunno if the format below is good, but you're very right.
> At least to me writing the diagram was an hour well spent :)

Great :)
 
> > One unexpected example of the latter that I came across was Tx SADB
> > key insertion in tail edge cases taking longer than network RTT, for
> > instance.
> > 
> > The kernel API can be exercised in a variety of ways, not all of them
> > will uphold the correctness. Documenting how it should be used should
> > help.
> > 
> > Even better when it reduces the option space. As it already does by
> > failing a Tx key install until Rx is configured.
> 
> Something along these lines?
> 
> "Sequence" diagram of the worst case scenario:
> 
> 01 p       Host A                         Host B
> 02 l t        ~~~~~~~~~~~[TCP 3 WHS]~~~~~~~~~~
> 03 a e        ~~~~~~[crypto negotiation]~~~~~~
> 04 i x                             [Rx key alloc = K-B]
> 05 n t                          <--- [app] K-B key send 
> 06 ------[Rx key alloc = K-A]-
> 07     [app] K-A key send -->|
> 08        [TCP] K-B input <-----
> 08 P      [TCP] K-B ACK ---->|
> 09 S R [app] recv(K-B)       |
> 10 P x [app] [Tx key set]    |  
> 11 -------------------------- 
> 12 P T [app] send(RPC) #####>|   
> 13 S x                       |<----    [TCP] Seq OoO! queue RPC, SACK
> 14 P      [TCP] retr K-A --->|   
> 15                           |  `->    [TCP] K-A input
> 16                           | <---    [TCP] K-A ACK (or FIN) 
> 17                           |      [app] recv(K-A)
> 18                           |      [app] [Tx key set]
> 19                            -----------------------------------
> 20
> 
> There is a causal dependency between Host B allocating the key (line 4),
> sending it (line 5) and Host A receiving it (line 8). Since Host B will
> accept PSP packets as soon as it allocated the key, Host A does not
> need to wait to start using the key (line 12). Host B will queue the
> RPC to the socket (line 13).
> 
> [Problem #1]
> 
> However, because Host B does not have a Tx key, the ACK / SACK packet
> (line 13) will not be encrypted. (Similarly if Host B decided to close
> the connection at this point, the resulting FIN packet would not be
> encrypted.)

Or if it plays SO_LINGER games the resulting RST.

> Host B needs to accept unencrypted non-data segments 
> (pure acks, pure FIN) until it sees an encrypted packet from Host B.
>
> [Problem #2]
> 
> The retansmissions of K-A are unencrypted, to avoid sending the same
> data in encrypted and unencrypted form. This poses a risk if an ACK
> gets lost but both hosts end up in the PSP Tx state. Assume that Host A
> did not send the RPC (line 12), and the retransmission (line 14)
> happens as an RTO or TLP. Host B may already reach PSP Tx state (line
> "20") and expect encrypted data. Plain text retransmissions (with
> sequence number before rcv_nxt) must be accepted until Host B sees
> encrypted data from Host A.

Is that sufficient if an initial encrypted packet could get reordered
by the network to arrive before a plaintext retransmit of a lower
seqno?

Both scenarios make sense. It is unfortunately harder to be sure that
we have captured all edge cases.

An issue related to the rcv_nxt cut-point, not sure how important: the
plaintext packet contents are protected by user crypto before upgrade.
But the TCP headers are not. PSP relies on TCP PAWS against replay
protection. It is possible for a MITM to offset all seqno from the
start of connection establishment. I don't see an immediate issue. But
at a minimum it could be possible to insert or delete before PSP is
upgraded.

> 
> With that I think the state machine needs to be amended:
> 
> Event          | Normal TCP  | Rx PSP      | Tx PSP      | PSP full    |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rx plain (new) | accept      | accept      | drop        | drop        |
> 
> Rx plain       | accept      | accept      | accept      | drop        |
> (ACK|FIN|rtx)  |             |             |             |             |
> 
> Rx PSP (good)  | drop        | accept      | accept      | accept      |
> 
> Rx PSP (bad    | drop        | drop        | drop        | drop        |
> (crypt, !=SPI) |             |             |             |             |
> 
> Tx             | plain text  | plain text  | encrypted   | encrypted   |
>                |             |             | (excl. rtx) | (excl. rtx) |
> 
> > > > Another example where a peer stays open and stays retrying if it has
> > > > upgraded and drops all plaintext.  
> > 
> > May want to always allow plaintext RSTs. This is a potential DoS
> > vector.
> 
> Because of key exhaustion? Or we can be tricked into spamming someone
> with retranmissions and ignoring their RST?

Simpler: this falls back onto unencrypted TCP where someone capable of
spoofing valid data is capable of terminating a connection.

If denying all plaintext after upgrade, PSP protects against this.

It is arguably low on the list of concerns, especially in a closed
world hyperscaler setting. As it is hardly the only DoS vector.

> > In all these cases, I suppose this has already been figured
> > out for TLS.
> 
> Assuming the answer above is "key exhaustion" - I wouldn't be surprised
> if it wasn't :(

Powered by blists - more mailing lists