On 7/10/2015 1:56 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
On 07/10/2015 12:11 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 09:22:24AM -0400, Tom Talpey wrote:
and it is enabled only when the RDMA Read is active.
??? How is that done? ib_get_dma_mr is defined to return a remote
usable rkey that is valid from when it it returns until the MR is
destroyed. NFS creates one mr early on, it does not seem to make one
per RDMA READ?
Actually you're right - the NFS server never tears down the MR. So, the
old code is just as vulnerable as the new code.
For the proposed iSER patch the problem is very acute, iser makes a
single PD and phys MR at boot time for each device. This means there
is a single machine wide unchanging rkey that allows remote physical
memory access. An attacker only has to repeatedly open QPs to iSER and
guess rkey values until they find it. Add in likely non-crypto
randomness for rkeys, and I bet it isn't even that hard to do.
The rkeys have a PD, wich cannot be forged, so it's not a matter of
attacking, but it is most definitely a system integrity risk, as I
mentioned earlier, a simple arithmetic offset mistake can overwrite
anything.
So this seems to be a catastrophic security failing.
s/security/integrity/ and I agree.
As I recall, didn't the NFSoRDMA stack do even worse in the beginning
(meaning it previously had a memory model that was simply "register all
memory on the client and pass the rkey to the server and then tell the
server when/where to read/write", which was subsequently removed in
Chuck's NFSoRDMA cleanups over the last 5 or so kernel versions)?
Yes, Doug, shamefully it did, but
a) That was the client and Jason and I are talking about the server
b) When that code was written (2007), FRMR did not exist, and other
memory registration methods had abysmal performance
c) It was heavily deprecated with console warnings emitted
d) Chuck did away with it since then.
I'm not bringing this up to downplay the current iSER issue, but to
demonstrate that we have long had a different trust model than the one
in RFC5042. More below on that.
I'll say something after requoting you.
From there, it is a logical wish: If Steve is going to FRMR'ize iSER
to be acceptable security wise, I'd rather see that work done on in a
general way. Hence the API discussion.
Well, it's important to realize that NFS already does the Right Thing.
So it isn't actually an urgent issue. There is time to discuss.
It depends on what is going on with iWarp iSER. If the iWarp community
thinks it should go ahead insecurely then fine, put a giant warning in
dmesg and go ahead, otherwise iWarp needs to address this difference
with a proper generic API, which appears, must wrapper
ib_post_send. Harder job :\
I'm sorry Steve for leading you down the wrong path with these flags,
I did not fully realize exactly what the iWarp difference was at the
start :(
Are there security issues? Yes. Are we going to solve them in this
patch set? No. Especially since those security issues extend beyond
iSER + iWARP.
There are currently 4 RDMA capable link types/protocols. Of those 4, 3
enforce locality (IB, OPA, RoCE all require lossless fabrics and cannot
be sent out into the wild internet). RFC5042 is written with iWARP in
mind because it *can* be sent out over the Internet and therefore it is
possible for someone to place an RNIC card directly on the Internet and
it must therefore deal with all of the attack vectors this entails.
The linux RDMA stack, as a whole, is no where near RFC5042 compliant.
And it isn't just the kernel space at fault here. Early versions of
opensm used to require that the master and slave machines must have
passwordless root ssh access to each other to copy around the guid2lid
file so when the master failed over, the slave would have an up to date
list.
Because 3 of the 4 RDMA technology types enforce localized clusters, the
majority of the stack and the implementations have utilized the cluster
as the point of trust. In truth, I think it's simply been the easy way
to do things. RFC5042 is very clearly a non-trust model where each
machine, and each connection, is assumed to be a threat.
So, long story short(ish):
While this discussion is taking place in the cleanup thread, part of it
involves the preceding patch set: iSER support for iWARP. Patch 4/5 in
the iSER/iWARP series enables the remote write on device->mr
registration which constitutes the security issue we've been discussing.
This cleanup patch set, then, is merely guilty of hiding that security
issue, not introducing it.
I think Steve and the other iSER folks should consider the wisdom of
including the iWARP support as it stands. If they think that the common
use case is in a sequestered cluster, and that the current trust domain
is already not RFC5042 compliant, then I'm OK with enabling iSER support
for iWARP, but I would want there to be a very clear warning in the
dmesg about the trust domain issue. I might even suggest that the iSER
driver, at least on iWARP connections, could possibly check the src/dst
addresses to make sure that they are in a private IP domain and if they
aren't, refuse to create a connection while emitting an additional
warning about the trust domain.
As far as the cleanup patches are concerned, I'm OK with those too.
However, since we would have added a large warning in the iSER code
about this issue, and that would then go away with the cleanup, the
warning would need to be generalized (such as "module <foo> is
requesting insecure iWARP mappings"), and appropriately WARN_ONCEd on
probably a per module basis or something like that.
From there, we can start to look at the bigger picture of cleanup up the
default trust domain in the kernel and user space both (and soliciting
feedback on that...I have a suspicion that some users will not like us
tightening up security as it might interfere with their usage in their
sequestered clusters).
All excellent points. It's not worse, and it adds important transport
support.
However, it's an extremely bad idea to codify writable privileged rmr's
in the API as best practice. So under no circumstance should that become
the long term plan.
Tom.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
