Re: QAPI schema for desired state of LUKS keyslots (was: [PATCH 02/13] qcrypto-luks: implement encryption key management)

[Maxim Levitsky]

On Tue, 2020-03-03 at 11:18 +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 15:51 +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Review of this patch led to a lengthy QAPI schema design discussion.
> > Let me try to condense it into a concrete proposal.
> > 
> > This is about the QAPI schema, and therefore about QMP.  The
> > human-friendly interface is out of scope.  Not because it's not
> > important (it clearly is!), only because we need to *focus* to have a
> > chance at success.
> > 
> > I'm going to include a few design options.  I'll mark them "Option:".
> > 
> > The proposed "amend" interface takes a specification of desired state,
> > and figures out how to get from here to there by itself.  LUKS keyslots
> > are one part of desired state.
> > 
> > We commonly have eight LUKS keyslots.  Each keyslot is either active or
> > inactive.  An active keyslot holds a secret.
> > 
> > Goal: a QAPI type for specifying desired state of LUKS keyslots.
> > 
> > Proposal:
> > 
> >     { 'enum': 'LUKSKeyslotState',
> >       'data': [ 'active', 'inactive' ] }
> > 
> >     { 'struct': 'LUKSKeyslotActive',
> >       'data': { 'secret': 'str',
> >                 '*iter-time': 'int } }
> > 
> >     { 'struct': 'LUKSKeyslotInactive',
> >       'data': { '*old-secret': 'str' } }
> > 
> >     { 'union': 'LUKSKeyslotAmend',
> >       'base': { '*keyslot': 'int',
> >                 'state': 'LUKSKeyslotState' }
> >       'discriminator': 'state',
> >       'data': { 'active': 'LUKSKeyslotActive',
> >                 'inactive': 'LUKSKeyslotInactive' } }
> > 
> > LUKSKeyslotAmend specifies desired state for a set of keyslots.
> > 
> > Four cases:
> > 
> > * @state is "active"
> > 
> >   Desired state is active holding the secret given by @secret.  Optional
> >   @iter-time tweaks key stretching.
> > 
> >   The keyslot is chosen either by the user or by the system, as follows:
> > 
> >   - @keyslot absent
> > 
> >     One inactive keyslot chosen by the system.  If none exists, error.
> > 
> >   - @keyslot present
> > 
> >     The keyslot given by @keyslot.
> > 
> >     If it's already active holding @secret, no-op.  Rationale: the
> >     current state is the desired state.
> > 
> >     If it's already active holding another secret, error.  Rationale:
> >     update in place is unsafe.
> > 
> >     Option: delete the "already active holding @secret" case.  Feels
> >     inelegant to me.  Okay if it makes things substantially simpler.
> > 
> > * @state is "inactive"
> > 
> >   Desired state is inactive.
> > 
> >   Error if the current state has active keyslots, but the desired state
> >   has none.
> > 
> >   The user choses the keyslot by number and/or by the secret it holds,
> >   as follows:
> > 
> >   - @keyslot absent, @old-secret present
> > 
> >     All active keyslots holding @old-secret.  If none exists, error.
> > 
> >   - @keyslot present, @old-secret absent
> > 
> >     The keyslot given by @keyslot.
> > 
> >     If it's already inactive, no-op.  Rationale: the current state is
> >     the desired state.
> > 
> >   - both @keyslot and @old-secret present
> > 
> >     The keyslot given by keyslot.
> > 
> >     If it's inactive or holds a secret other than @old-secret, error.
> > 
> >     Option: error regardless of @old-secret, if that makes things
> >     simpler.
> > 
> >   - neither @keyslot not @old-secret present
> > 
> >     All keyslots.  Note that this will error out due to "desired state
> >     has no active keyslots" unless the current state has none, either.
> > 
> >     Option: error out unconditionally.
> > 
> > Note that LUKSKeyslotAmend can specify only one desired state for
> > commonly just one keyslot.  Rationale: this satisfies practical needs.
> > An array of LUKSKeyslotAmend could specify desired state for all
> > keyslots.  However, multiple array elements could then apply to the same
> > slot.  We'd have to specify how to resolve such conflicts, and we'd have
> > to code up conflict detection.  Not worth it.
> > 
> > Examples:
> > 
> > * Add a secret to some free keyslot:
> > 
> >   { "state": "active", "secret": "CIA/GRU/MI6" }
> > 
> > * Deactivate all keyslots holding a secret:
> > 
> >   { "state": "inactive", "old-secret": "CIA/GRU/MI6" }
> > 
> > * Add a secret to a specific keyslot:
> > 
> >   { "state": "active", "secret": "CIA/GRU/MI6", "keyslot": 0 }
> > 
> > * Deactivate a specific keyslot:
> > 
> >   { "state": "inactive", "keyslot": 0 }
> > 
> >   Possibly less dangerous:
> > 
> >   { "state": "inactive", "keyslot": 0, "old-secret": "CIA/GRU/MI6" }
> > 
> > Option: Make use of Max's patches to support optional union tag with
> > default value to let us default @state to "active".  I doubt this makes
> > much of a difference in QMP.  A human-friendly interface should probably
> > be higher level anyway (Daniel pointed to cryptsetup).
> > 
> > Option: LUKSKeyslotInactive member @old-secret could also be named
> > @secret.  I don't care.
> > 
> > Option: delete @keyslot.  It provides low-level slot access.
> > Complicates the interface.  Fine if we need lov-level slot access.  Do
> > we?
> > 
> > I apologize for the time it has taken me to write this.
> > 
> > Comments?
> 
> I tried today to implement this but I hit a very unpleasant roadblock:
> 
> Since QCrypto is generic (even though it only implements currently luks for 
> raw/qcow2 usage,
> and legacy qcow2 aes encryption), I still can't assume that this is always 
> the case.
> Thus I implemented the Qcrypto amend API in this way:
> 
> ##
> # @QCryptoBlockAmendOptions:
> #
> # The options that are available for all encryption formats
> # when amending encryption settings
> #
> # Since: 5.0
> ##
> { 'union': 'QCryptoBlockAmendOptions',
>   'base': 'QCryptoBlockOptionsBase',
>   'discriminator': 'format',
>   'data': {
>           'luks': 'QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS' } }
> 
> However the QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS is a union too to be in line with 
> the API proposal,
> but that is not supported on QAPI level and after I and Markus talked about 
> we are not sure
> that it is worth it to implement this support only for this case.
> 
> So far I see the following solutions
> 
> 
> 1. Drop the QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS union for now.
> This will bring the schema pretty much to be the same as my original proposal,
> however the API will be the same thus once nested unions are implemented this 
> union
> can always be introduced again.
> 
> 2. Drop the QCryptoBlockAmendOptions union. Strictly speaking this union is 
> not needed
> since it only has one member anyway, however this union is used both by qcow2 
> QAPI scheme,
> so that it doesn't hardcode an encryption format for amend just like it 
> doesn't for creation,
> (this can be hardcoded for now as well for now as long as we don't have more 
> amendable encryption formats).
> However I also use the QCryptoBlockAmendOptions in C code in QCrypto API thus 
> it will be ugly to use the 
> QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS instead.
> 
> 
> 3. Make QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS a struct and add to it a nested member 
> with new union type 
> (say QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS1) which will be exactly as 
> QCryptoBlockAmendOptionsLUKS was.
> 
> This IMHO is even uglier since it changes the API (which we can't later fix) 
> and adds both a dummy struct
> field and a dummy struct name.
> 
> I personally vote 1.

Any update?

> 
> Best regards,
>       Maxim Levitsky
> 
> 
>