> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 8:17 AM
> To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Akhil Goyal
> <gak...@marvell.com>; Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com>; Konstantin Ananyev
> <konstantin.v.anan...@yandex.ru>
> Cc: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Matz,
> Olivier <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; Vidya Sagar Velumuri
> <vvelum...@marvell.com>
> Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/3] security: add TLS record processing
>
> Add Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
> (DTLS). The protocols provide communications privacy for L4 protocols
> such as TCP & UDP.
>
> TLS (and DTLS) protocol is composed of two layers,
> 1. TLS Record Protocol
> 2. TLS Handshake Protocol
>
> While TLS Handshake Protocol helps in establishing security parameters
> by which client and server can communicate, TLS Record Protocol provides
> the connection security. TLS Record Protocol leverages symmetric
> cryptographic operations such as data encryption and authentication for
> providing security to the communications.
>
> Cryptodevs that are capable of offloading TLS Record Protocol may
> perform other operations like IV generation, header insertion, atomic
> sequence number updates and anti-replay window check in addition to
> cryptographic transformations.
>
> The support is added for TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3 and DTLS 1.2.
>From the code below, my understanding is that *ONLY* the record layer is being
added/supported? The difference is described well above, but the intended
support added is not clearly defined.
Suggest reword the last line to clarify:
"Support for TLS record protocol is added for TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3 and DTLS 1.2."
> Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar Velumuri <vvelum...@marvell.com>
> ---
> doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_security.rst | 58 +++++++++++++
> lib/security/rte_security.c | 4 +
> lib/security/rte_security.h | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 172 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_security.rst
> b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_security.rst
> index 7418e35c1b..7716d7239f 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_security.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_security.rst
> @@ -399,6 +399,64 @@ The API ``rte_security_macsec_sc_create`` returns a
> handle for SC,
> and this handle is set in ``rte_security_macsec_xform``
> to create a MACsec session using ``rte_security_session_create``.
>
> +TLS-Record Protocol
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +The Transport Layer Protocol provides communications security over the
> Internet. The protocol
> +allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to
> prevent eavesdropping,
> +tampering, or message forgery.
> +
> +TLS protocol is composed of two layers: the TLS Record Protocol and the TLS
> Handshake Protocol. At
> +the lowest level, layered on top of some reliable transport protocol (e.g.,
> TCP),
> is the TLS Record
> +Protocol. The TLS Record Protocol provides connection security that has two
> basic properties:
> +
> + - The connection is private. Symmetric cryptography is used for data
> + encryption (e.g., AES, DES, etc.). The keys for this symmetric
> encryption
> + are generated uniquely for each connection and are based on a secret
> + negotiated by another protocol (such as the TLS Handshake Protocol).
> The
> + Record Protocol can also be used without encryption.
> +
> + - The connection is reliable. Message transport includes a message
> + integrity check using a keyed MAC. Secure hash functions (e.g.,
> + SHA-1, etc.) are used for MAC computations. The Record Protocol
> + can operate without a MAC, but is generally only used in this mode
> + while another protocol is using the Record Protocol as a transport
> + for negotiating security parameters.
> +
> +.. code-block:: c
The code block below isn't C? Is there a better code block type for a text
diagram?
> + Record Write Record Read
> + ------------ -----------
> +
> + TLSPlaintext TLSCiphertext
> + | |
> + ~ ~
> + | |
> + V V
> + +---------|----------+ +----------|---------+
> + | Seq. no generation | | Seq. no generation |
> + +---------|----------+ +----------|---------+
> + | |
> + +---------|----------+ +----------|---------+
> + | Header insertion | | Decryption & |
> + +---------|----------+ | MAC verification |
> + | +----------|---------+
> + +---------|----------+ |
> + | MAC generation & | +----------|---------+
> + | Encryption | | TLS Header removal |
> + +---------|----------+ +----------|---------+
> + | |
> + ~ ~
> + | |
> + V V
> + TLSCiphertext TLSPlaintext
> +
> +Supported Versions
> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +
> +* TLS 1.2
> +* TLS 1.3
> +* DTLS 1.2
>
> Device Features and Capabilities
> ---------------------------------
> diff --git a/lib/security/rte_security.c b/lib/security/rte_security.c
> index c4d64bb8e9..bd7b026547 100644
> --- a/lib/security/rte_security.c
> +++ b/lib/security/rte_security.c
> @@ -282,6 +282,10 @@ rte_security_capability_get(struct rte_security_ctx
> *instance,
> if (capability->docsis.direction ==
> idx->docsis.direction)
> return capability;
> + } else if (idx->protocol ==
> RTE_SECURITY_PROTOCOL_TLS_RECORD) {
> + if (capability->tls_record.ver == idx-
> >tls_record.ver &&
> + capability->tls_record.type == idx-
> >tls_record.type)
> + return capability;
> }
> }
> }
> diff --git a/lib/security/rte_security.h b/lib/security/rte_security.h
> index 3b2df526ba..b9d064ed84 100644
> --- a/lib/security/rte_security.h
> +++ b/lib/security/rte_security.h
> @@ -620,6 +620,99 @@ struct rte_security_docsis_xform {
> /**< DOCSIS direction */
> };
>
> +/** Salt len to be used with AEAD algos in TLS 1.2 */
> +#define RTE_SECURITY_TLS_1_2_SALT_LEN 4
> +/** Salt len to be used with AEAD algos in TLS 1.3 */
> +#define RTE_SECURITY_TLS_1_3_SALT_LEN 12
> +/** Salt len to be used with AEAD algos in DTLS 1.2 */
> +#define RTE_SECURITY_DTLS_1_2_SALT_LEN 4
> +
> +/** TLS version */
> +enum rte_security_tls_version {
> + RTE_SECURITY_VERSION_TLS_1_2, /**< TLS 1.2 */
> + RTE_SECURITY_VERSION_TLS_1_3, /**< TLS 1.3 */
> + RTE_SECURITY_VERSION_DTLS_1_2, /**< DTLS 1.2 */
> +};
> +
> +/** TLS session type */
> +enum rte_security_tls_sess_type {
> + /** Record read session
> + * - Decrypt & digest verification.
> + */
> + RTE_SECURITY_TLS_SESS_TYPE_READ,
> + /** Record write session
> + * - Encrypt & digest generation.
> + */
> + RTE_SECURITY_TLS_SESS_TYPE_WRITE,
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * Configure soft and hard lifetime of a TLS record session
> + *
> + * Lifetime of a TLS record session would specify the maximum number of
> packets that can be
> + * processed. TLS record processing operations would start failing once hard
> limit is reached.
> + *
> + * Soft limits can be specified to generate notification when the TLS record
> session is approaching
> + * hard limits for lifetime. This would result in a warning returned in
> ``rte_crypto_op.aux_flags``.
Can we define "a warning" better? Perhaps an example of a soft-limit and
hard-limit, what the user can check aux_flags for, to identify? Or link to the
appropriate part of the crypto_op.aux_flags documentation to help the user.
> + */
> +struct rte_security_tls_record_lifetime {
> + /** Soft expiry limit in number of packets */
> + uint64_t packets_soft_limit;
> + /** Hard expiry limit in number of packets */
> + uint64_t packets_hard_limit;
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * TLS record protocol session configuration.
> + *
> + * This structure contains data required to create a TLS record security
> session.
> + */
> +struct rte_security_tls_record_xform {
> + /** TLS record version. */
> + enum rte_security_tls_version ver;
> + /** TLS record session type. */
> + enum rte_security_tls_sess_type type;
> + /** TLS record session lifetime. */
> + struct rte_security_tls_record_lifetime life;
> + union {
> + /** TLS 1.2 parameters. */
> + struct {
> + /** Starting sequence number. */
> + uint64_t seq_no;
> + /** Salt to be used for AEAD algos. */
> + uint8_t salt[RTE_SECURITY_TLS_1_2_SALT_LEN];
> + } tls_1_2;
> +
> + /** TLS 1.3 parameters. */
> + struct {
> + /** Starting sequence number. */
> + uint64_t seq_no;
> + /** Salt to be used for AEAD algos. */
> + uint8_t salt[RTE_SECURITY_TLS_1_3_SALT_LEN];
> + /**
> + * Minimum payload length (in case of write sessions).
> For shorter inputs,
> + * the payload would be padded appropriately before
> performing crypto
Replace "would be" with "must be"? And who must do this step, is it the
application?
> + * transformations.
> + */
> + uint32_t min_payload_len;
> + } tls_1_3;
> +
> + /** DTLS 1.2 parameters */
> + struct {
> + /** Epoch value to be used. */
> + uint16_t epoch;
> + /** 6B starting sequence number to be used. */
> + uint64_t seq_no;
> + /** Salt to be used for AEAD algos. */
> + uint8_t salt[RTE_SECURITY_DTLS_1_2_SALT_LEN];
> + /** Anti replay window size to enable sequence replay
> attack handling.
> + * Anti replay check is disabled if the window size is
> 0.
> + */
> + uint32_t ar_win_sz;
> + } dtls_1_2;
> + };
> +};
> +
> /**
> * Security session action type.
> */
> @@ -654,6 +747,8 @@ enum rte_security_session_protocol {
> /**< PDCP Protocol */
> RTE_SECURITY_PROTOCOL_DOCSIS,
> /**< DOCSIS Protocol */
> + RTE_SECURITY_PROTOCOL_TLS_RECORD,
> + /**< TLS Record Protocol */
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -670,6 +765,7 @@ struct rte_security_session_conf {
> struct rte_security_macsec_xform macsec;
> struct rte_security_pdcp_xform pdcp;
> struct rte_security_docsis_xform docsis;
> + struct rte_security_tls_record_xform tls;
Do we see TLS handshake xform being added in future? If so, is 'tls' a good
name, perhaps 'tls_record'?
That would allow 'tls_handshake' in future, with consistent naming scheme
without API/ABI break.
> };
> /**< Configuration parameters for security session */
> struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *crypto_xform;
> @@ -1190,6 +1286,16 @@ struct rte_security_capability {
> /**< DOCSIS direction */
> } docsis;
> /**< DOCSIS capability */
> + struct {
> + enum rte_security_tls_version ver;
> + /**< TLS record version. */
> + enum rte_security_tls_sess_type type;
> + /**< TLS record session type. */
> + uint32_t ar_win_size;
> + /**< Maximum anti replay window size supported for
> DTLS 1.2 record read
> + * operation. Value of 0 means anti replay check is not
> supported.
> + */
> + } tls_record;
Missing /**< TLS Record Capability */ docstring here.
> };
>
> const struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities *crypto_capabilities;
> @@ -1251,6 +1357,10 @@ struct rte_security_capability_idx {
> struct {
> enum rte_security_docsis_direction direction;
> } docsis;
> + struct {
> + enum rte_security_tls_version ver;
> + enum rte_security_tls_sess_type type;
> + } tls_record;
> };
> };
>
> --
> 2.25.1
