No edit summary |
(Add trackers) |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= | = NSS CK_GCM_PARAMS change = | ||
NSS CK_GCM_PARAMS change | |||
== Summary == | == Summary == | ||
<!-- A sentence or two summarizing what this change is and what it will do. This information is used for the overall changeset summary page for each release. | <!-- A sentence or two summarizing what this change is and what it will do. This information is used for the overall changeset summary page for each release. | ||
Note that motivation for the change should be in the Benefit to Fedora section below, and this part should answer the question "What?" rather than "Why?". --> | Note that motivation for the change should be in the Benefit to Fedora section below, and this part should answer the question "What?" rather than "Why?". --> | ||
Because of changes to the PKCS #11 spec in PKCS #11 v3.0, NSS needs to change the definition of CK_GCM_PARAMS in a source incompatible way. Upstream made this change in 3.52. | Because of changes to the PKCS #11 spec in PKCS #11 v3.0, NSS needs to change the definition of the CK_GCM_PARAMS structure in a source incompatible way. Upstream made this change in NSS 3.52. This change does not affect the ABI. Old programs compiled with older versions of NSS will still work. Only packages that use NSS and directly call AES GCM are affected. | ||
== Owner == | == Owner == | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
--> | --> | ||
* Name: [[User:rrelyea| Bob Relyea]] | * Name: [[User:rrelyea| Bob Relyea]] | ||
<!-- Include you email address that you can be reached should people want to contact you about helping with your change, status is requested, or technical issues need to be resolved. If the change proposal is owned by a SIG, please also add a primary contact person. --> | <!-- Include you email address that you can be reached should people want to contact you about helping with your change, status is requested, or technical issues need to be resolved. If the change proposal is owned by a SIG, please also add a primary contact person. --> | ||
* Email: rrelyea@redhat.com | * Email: rrelyea@redhat.com | ||
| Line 26: | Line 24: | ||
== Current status == | == Current status == | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:ChangeAcceptedF34]] | ||
<!-- When your change proposal page is completed and ready for review and announcement --> | <!-- When your change proposal page is completed and ready for review and announcement --> | ||
<!-- remove Category:ChangePageIncomplete and change it to Category:ChangeReadyForWrangler --> | <!-- remove Category:ChangePageIncomplete and change it to Category:ChangeReadyForWrangler --> | ||
| Line 45: | Line 43: | ||
CLOSED as NEXTRELEASE -> change is completed and verified and will be delivered in next release under development | CLOSED as NEXTRELEASE -> change is completed and verified and will be delivered in next release under development | ||
--> | --> | ||
* FESCo issue: | * FESCo issue: [https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2400 #2400] | ||
* Tracker bug: | * Tracker bug: [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1866878 #1866878] | ||
* Release notes tracker: | * Release notes tracker: [https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/release-notes/issue/544 #544] | ||
== Detailed Description == | == Detailed Description == | ||
<!-- Expand on the summary, if appropriate. A couple sentences suffices to explain the goal, but the more details you can provide the better. --> | <!-- Expand on the summary, if appropriate. A couple sentences suffices to explain the goal, but the more details you can provide the better. --> | ||
PKCS #11 2.40 had a mismatch between the | PKCS #11 2.40 had a mismatch between the spec and the released header file for the CK_GCM_PARAMS structure. The latter is controlling. We created our header based on the former. In PKCS #11 v3.0 the reconciled this, but it left us with and incompatible header. The new (to NSS) definition has a new field ulIvBits, which must be set correctly (see below). | ||
To solve this, the NSS 3.52 headers has both | To solve this, the NSS 3.52 headers has definitions for both structures: CK_NSS_GCM_PARAMS is the original NSS definition and CK_GCM_PARAMS_V3 is the new (to NSS) definition matching the current spec. CK_GCM_PARAMS will take on the definition of CK_GCM_PARAM_V3 by default, and CK_NSS_GCM_PARAMS if the code is compiled with NSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT defined. | ||
The current NSS builds in fedora have changes the sense of this #define | The current NSS builds in fedora have changes the sense of this #define so defining NSS_PKCS11_3_0_STRICT to gets the new behavior, and keep the old behavior by default. NSS builds will automatically switch back to the upstream default in Fedora 34. None of the changes below actually requires setting the NSS_PKCS11_3_STRICT define, though doing so can test that all but option 1 is functioning. These changes can be made in the current fedora as long as you have NSS 3.52. | ||
Applications can fix this the following ways: | Applications can fix this the following ways: | ||
| Line 62: | Line 60: | ||
option 1 | option 1 | ||
#define NSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT 1 | #define NSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT 1 | ||
or compile with -DNSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT | or compile with -DNSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT | ||
your app will compile and run using current and older versions of NSS, but may break on newer tokens that use the new definition (same as the previous behavior. | your app will compile and run using current and older versions of NSS (no need for nss 3.52), but may break on newer tokens that use the new definition (same as the previous behavior). Do this if your packages needs to compile in enviroments that have old versions of nss. | ||
--------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| Line 72: | Line 70: | ||
option 2 | option 2 | ||
rename CK_GCM_PARAMS to CK_NSS_GCM_PARAMS (this will now require nss >= 3.52 to compile, but won't change based on NSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT). Like option | rename all occurances of CK_GCM_PARAMS to CK_NSS_GCM_PARAMS (this will now require nss >= 3.52 to compile, but won't change based on NSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT or NSS_PKCS11_3_0_STRICT). Like option 1 it may break on newer tokens. | ||
------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| Line 78: | Line 76: | ||
option 3 | option 3 | ||
rename CK_GCM_PARAMS to CK_GCM_PARAMS_V3 and set ulIvBits to ulIvLen*8. | rename all occurances of CK_GCM_PARAMS to CK_GCM_PARAMS_V3 and set ulIvBits to ulIvLen*8. | ||
This will require nss >= 3.52 to compile and to run. Should run on all | This will require nss >= 3.52 to compile and to run. Should run on all new tokens. May break on older tokens. | ||
----------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| Line 86: | Line 84: | ||
option 4 | option 4 | ||
Move to PK11_AEADOp interface, which all requires nss >= 3.52 to compile and run, but it's less surprising and the dependency will be picked up automatically because you are using a new for 3.52 interface. | Move to PK11_AEADOp interface, which all requires nss >= 3.52 to compile and run, but it's less surprising and the dependency will be picked up automatically because you are using a new for 3.52 interface, so it will continue to work against all tokens. | ||
---------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ||
| Line 128: | Line 126: | ||
NSS 3.52 has already had builds made with the reverse sense. NSS will need to be rebuilt at the start of Fedora 34. | NSS 3.52 has already had builds made with the reverse sense. NSS will need to be rebuilt at the start of Fedora 34. | ||
* Other developers: <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | * Other developers: <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
<!-- What work do other developers have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release? Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?--> | <!-- What work do other developers have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release? Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?--> | ||
Developers need to choose one of | Developers need to choose one of the options listed in the description by fedora 34 or their rebuilt packages will fail at runtime. | ||
* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9486 #Releng issue number 9486] | |||
* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/ | |||
<!-- Does this feature require coordination with release engineering (e.g. changes to installer image generation or update package delivery)? Is a mass rebuild required? include a link to the releng issue. | <!-- Does this feature require coordination with release engineering (e.g. changes to installer image generation or update package delivery)? Is a mass rebuild required? include a link to the releng issue. | ||
The issue is required to be filed prior to feature submission, to ensure that someone is on board to do any process development work and testing, and that all changes make it into the pipeline; a bullet point in a change is not sufficient communication --> | The issue is required to be filed prior to feature submission, to ensure that someone is on board to do any process development work and testing, and that all changes make it into the pipeline; a bullet point in a change is not sufficient communication --> | ||
| Line 174: | Line 140: | ||
* Policies and guidelines: <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | * Policies and guidelines: <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
<!-- Do the packaging guidelines or other documents need to be updated for this feature? If so, does it need to happen before or after the implementation is done? If a FPC ticket exists, add a link here. --> | <!-- Do the packaging guidelines or other documents need to be updated for this feature? If so, does it need to happen before or after the implementation is done? If a FPC ticket exists, add a link here. --> | ||
There isn't any policy or guideline changes needed for this change. | |||
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) | * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) | ||
| Line 183: | Line 149: | ||
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
There is no upgrade impact. There will be a source level incompatibility on rebuild at fedora 34. This change is to allow a transition in fedora 33 where source code can be updated in ways that work in both fedora 33 and fedora 34 after recompile. There are no binary compatibility issues (old applications compiled with the old version of nss will continue to work). | |||
== How To Test == | == How To Test == | ||
| Line 199: | Line 165: | ||
3. What are the expected results of those actions? | 3. What are the expected results of those actions? | ||
--> | --> | ||
#. Grep for CK_AES_GCM_PARAMS in our source tree. If it does not appear, no further action is needed. | |||
#. If you choose options 2-4, you can do a normal test build and run your normal tests against any version of nss > 3.52 | |||
#. If you think you don't need to make a change, compile your package with -DNSS_PKCS11_3_0_STRICT and run your normal tests. If everything works should should not need further action. | |||
#. option 1 would require building NSS without the patch and then rebuilding with your package. Only use option 1 if you need to build your package against older versions of nss. | |||
NOTE: The effect of not changing will create a runtime issue where your AES_GCM call will fail after recompiling. | NOTE: The effect of not changing will create a runtime issue where your AES_GCM call will fail after recompiling. | ||
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
== User Experience == | == User Experience == | ||
| Line 223: | Line 188: | ||
== Dependencies == | == Dependencies == | ||
<!-- What other packages (RPMs) depend on this package? Are there changes outside the developers' control on which completion of this change depends? In other words, completion of another change owned by someone else and might cause you to not be able to finish on time or that you would need to coordinate? Other upstream projects like the kernel (if this is not a kernel change)? --> | <!-- What other packages (RPMs) depend on this package? Are there changes outside the developers' control on which completion of this change depends? In other words, completion of another change owned by someone else and might cause you to not be able to finish on time or that you would need to coordinate? Other upstream projects like the kernel (if this is not a kernel change)? --> | ||
nss-3.52 or greater. | nss-3.52 or greater. nss-3.52 is now available in all supported versions of fedora. | ||
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
== Contingency Plan == | == Contingency Plan == | ||
<!-- If you cannot complete your feature by the final development freeze, what is the backup plan? This might be as simple as "Revert the shipped configuration". Or it might not (e.g. rebuilding a number of dependent packages). If you feature is not completed in time we want to assure others that other parts of Fedora will not be in jeopardy. --> | <!-- If you cannot complete your feature by the final development freeze, what is the backup plan? This might be as simple as "Revert the shipped configuration". Or it might not (e.g. rebuilding a number of dependent packages). If you feature is not completed in time we want to assure others that other parts of Fedora will not be in jeopardy. --> | ||
* Contingency mechanism: | * Contingency mechanism: | ||
If critical packages are not updated, the NSS team can turn off the automatic move in fedora 34. If non-critical packages do not update, then they will just fail on the first rebuild in fedora 34. Libreswan is the only critical package we know of at this time that is affected. Upstream already has the appropriate changes. | |||
<!-- When is the last time the contingency mechanism can be put in place? This will typically be the beta freeze. --> | <!-- When is the last time the contingency mechanism can be put in place? This will typically be the beta freeze. --> | ||
* Contingency deadline: | * Contingency deadline: beta freeze | ||
<!-- Does finishing this feature block the release, or can we ship with the feature in incomplete state? --> | <!-- Does finishing this feature block the release, or can we ship with the feature in incomplete state? --> | ||
* Blocks release? | * Blocks release? Yes, but only for critical packages. | ||
== Documentation == | == Documentation == | ||
Latest revision as of 17:15, 6 August 2020
NSS CK_GCM_PARAMS change
Summary
Because of changes to the PKCS #11 spec in PKCS #11 v3.0, NSS needs to change the definition of the CK_GCM_PARAMS structure in a source incompatible way. Upstream made this change in NSS 3.52. This change does not affect the ABI. Old programs compiled with older versions of NSS will still work. Only packages that use NSS and directly call AES GCM are affected.
Owner
- Name: Bob Relyea
- Email: rrelyea@redhat.com
Current status
- Targeted release: Fedora 34
- Last updated: 2020-08-06
- FESCo issue: #2400
- Tracker bug: #1866878
- Release notes tracker: #544
Detailed Description
PKCS #11 2.40 had a mismatch between the spec and the released header file for the CK_GCM_PARAMS structure. The latter is controlling. We created our header based on the former. In PKCS #11 v3.0 the reconciled this, but it left us with and incompatible header. The new (to NSS) definition has a new field ulIvBits, which must be set correctly (see below).
To solve this, the NSS 3.52 headers has definitions for both structures: CK_NSS_GCM_PARAMS is the original NSS definition and CK_GCM_PARAMS_V3 is the new (to NSS) definition matching the current spec. CK_GCM_PARAMS will take on the definition of CK_GCM_PARAM_V3 by default, and CK_NSS_GCM_PARAMS if the code is compiled with NSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT defined.
The current NSS builds in fedora have changes the sense of this #define so defining NSS_PKCS11_3_0_STRICT to gets the new behavior, and keep the old behavior by default. NSS builds will automatically switch back to the upstream default in Fedora 34. None of the changes below actually requires setting the NSS_PKCS11_3_STRICT define, though doing so can test that all but option 1 is functioning. These changes can be made in the current fedora as long as you have NSS 3.52.
Applications can fix this the following ways:
option 1
#define NSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT 1
or compile with -DNSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT
your app will compile and run using current and older versions of NSS (no need for nss 3.52), but may break on newer tokens that use the new definition (same as the previous behavior). Do this if your packages needs to compile in enviroments that have old versions of nss.
option 2
rename all occurances of CK_GCM_PARAMS to CK_NSS_GCM_PARAMS (this will now require nss >= 3.52 to compile, but won't change based on NSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT or NSS_PKCS11_3_0_STRICT). Like option 1 it may break on newer tokens.
option 3
rename all occurances of CK_GCM_PARAMS to CK_GCM_PARAMS_V3 and set ulIvBits to ulIvLen*8.
This will require nss >= 3.52 to compile and to run. Should run on all new tokens. May break on older tokens.
option 4
Move to PK11_AEADOp interface, which all requires nss >= 3.52 to compile and run, but it's less surprising and the dependency will be picked up automatically because you are using a new for 3.52 interface, so it will continue to work against all tokens.
Option 4 is the preferred solution. It takes advantage the the PKCS #11 v3 interface for AES_GCM while removing any PCKS #11 param structure dependency in the application. It also handles backward compatibility on older tokens and automatically detects which flavor of data structure is supported. It also would help with applications that support two or more of AES_GCM, AES_CCM, and CHACHA_POLY.
Benefit to Fedora
This change will keep fedora with the NSS upstream as well as make Fedora compliant with the official OASIS PKCS #11 spec.
Scope
- Proposal owners:
NSS 3.52 has already had builds made with the reverse sense. NSS will need to be rebuilt at the start of Fedora 34.
- Other developers:
Developers need to choose one of the options listed in the description by fedora 34 or their rebuilt packages will fail at runtime.
- Release engineering: #Releng issue number 9486
I believe there is no additional release engineering requirements for this bug. Only packages which use CK_AES_GCM_PARAMS need action and the action can happen outside the release process.
- Policies and guidelines:
There isn't any policy or guideline changes needed for this change.
- Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
Upgrade/compatibility impact
There is no upgrade impact. There will be a source level incompatibility on rebuild at fedora 34. This change is to allow a transition in fedora 33 where source code can be updated in ways that work in both fedora 33 and fedora 34 after recompile. There are no binary compatibility issues (old applications compiled with the old version of nss will continue to work).
How To Test
- . Grep for CK_AES_GCM_PARAMS in our source tree. If it does not appear, no further action is needed.
- . If you choose options 2-4, you can do a normal test build and run your normal tests against any version of nss > 3.52
- . If you think you don't need to make a change, compile your package with -DNSS_PKCS11_3_0_STRICT and run your normal tests. If everything works should should not need further action.
- . option 1 would require building NSS without the patch and then rebuilding with your package. Only use option 1 if you need to build your package against older versions of nss.
NOTE: The effect of not changing will create a runtime issue where your AES_GCM call will fail after recompiling.
User Experience
Users who don't build their own packages will see no issues. Users that build their own packages and use classic NSS AES_GCM will see runtime failures after a rebuild unless they update their packages.
Dependencies
nss-3.52 or greater. nss-3.52 is now available in all supported versions of fedora.
Contingency Plan
- Contingency mechanism:
If critical packages are not updated, the NSS team can turn off the automatic move in fedora 34. If non-critical packages do not update, then they will just fail on the first rebuild in fedora 34. Libreswan is the only critical package we know of at this time that is affected. Upstream already has the appropriate changes.
- Contingency deadline: beta freeze
- Blocks release? Yes, but only for critical packages.
Documentation
Description contains the notes that upstream is working on, modified for fedora. I'll include links once upstream has released them.
Release Notes
Replicate the description in the release notes of fedora 33 and fedora 34. Users can make their own changes in fedora 33 before fedora 34 is released.