mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Change Proposal Name <!-- The name of your change proposal --> = | = Change Proposal Name <!-- The name of your change proposal --> = | ||
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. | |||
== Owner == | == Owner == | ||
| Line 32: | Line 13: | ||
This should link to your home wiki page so we know who you are. | This should link to your home wiki page so we know who you are. | ||
--> | --> | ||
* Name: [[User: | * Name: [[User:rrelyea| Bob Relyea]] | ||
* Owners of other packages are unknown. | |||
<!-- 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: | * Email: rrelyea@redhat.com | ||
<!--- UNCOMMENT only for Changes with assigned Shepherd (by FESCo) | <!--- UNCOMMENT only for Changes with assigned Shepherd (by FESCo) | ||
* FESCo shepherd: [[User:FASAccountName| Shehperd name]] <email address> | * FESCo shepherd: [[User:FASAccountName| Shehperd name]] <email address> | ||
| Line 51: | Line 33: | ||
<!-- Select proper category, default is Self Contained Change --> | <!-- Select proper category, default is Self Contained Change --> | ||
[[Category:SelfContainedChange]] | <!-- [[Category:SelfContainedChange]] --> | ||
[[Category:SystemWideChange]] | |||
* Targeted release: [[Releases/ | * Targeted release: [[Releases/34 | Fedora 34 ]] | ||
* Last updated: <!-- this is an automatic macro — you don't need to change this line --> {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY2}} | * Last updated: <!-- this is an automatic macro — you don't need to change this line --> {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY2}} | ||
<!-- After the change proposal is accepted by FESCo, tracking bug is created in Bugzilla and linked to this page | <!-- After the change proposal is accepted by FESCo, tracking bug is created in Bugzilla and linked to this page | ||
| Line 70: | Line 52: | ||
<!-- 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 SPEC and the released header file for CK_GCM_PARAMS. The latter is controlling. We created or header based on the former. In PKCS #11 v3.0 the reconciled this, but it left us with. The new (to NSS) definition has a new field ulIvBits, which must be set correctly. | |||
To solve this, the NSS 3.52 headers has both definitions: CK_NSS_GCM_PARAMS is the original NSS definition and CK_GCM_PARAMS_V3 is the new (to NSS) definition. CK_GCM_PARAMS takes on one or the other based on the definition of NSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT. | |||
The current NSS builds in fedora have changes the sense of this #define to NSS_PKCS11_3_0_STRICT to get 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. | |||
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, but may break on newer tokens that use the new definition (same as the previous behavior. | |||
--------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
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 2 it may break on newer tokens. | |||
------------------------------------------------------------------ | |||
option 3 | |||
rename 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 run 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. | |||
---------------------------------- | |||
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 == | == Benefit to Fedora == | ||
| Line 100: | Line 120: | ||
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/perl5.26 (major upgrade to a popular software stack, visible to users of that stack) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/perl5.26 (major upgrade to a popular software stack, visible to users of that stack) | ||
--> | --> | ||
This change will keep fedora with the NSS upstream as well as make Fedora compliant with the official OASIS PKCS #11 spec. | |||
== Scope == | == Scope == | ||
| Line 105: | Line 127: | ||
<!-- What work do the feature owners 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 the feature owners 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?--> | ||
* Other developers: | 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 --> | |||
<!-- 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 these options by fedora 34 or their rebuilt packages will fail at runtime. | |||
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, but may break on newer tokens that use the new definition (same as the previous behavior. | |||
--------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
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 2 it may break on newer tokens. | |||
------------------------------------------------------------------ | |||
option 3 | |||
rename 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 run 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. | |||
---------------------------------- | |||
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. | |||
* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issues #Releng issue number] (a check of an impact with Release Engineering is needed) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | * Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issues #Releng issue number] (a check of an impact with Release Engineering is needed) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
<!-- 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 --> | ||
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: | * 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. --> | ||
Thid doesn't | |||
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) | * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) | ||
| Line 122: | Line 183: | ||
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
== How To Test == | == How To Test == | ||
| Line 138: | Line 199: | ||
3. What are the expected results of those actions? | 3. What are the expected results of those actions? | ||
--> | --> | ||
1. Grep for CK_AES_GCM_PARAMS in our source tree. If it does not appear, no further action is needed. | |||
2. 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 | |||
3. 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. | |||
4. 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. | |||
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
== User Experience == | == User Experience == | ||
| Line 153: | Line 219: | ||
- Green has been scientifically proven to be the most relaxing color. The move to a default background color of green with green text will result in Fedora users being the most relaxed users of any operating system. | - Green has been scientifically proven to be the most relaxing color. The move to a default background color of green with green text will result in Fedora users being the most relaxed users of any operating system. | ||
--> | --> | ||
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 == | == 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. | |||
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
== Contingency Plan == | == Contingency Plan == | ||
| Line 169: | Line 237: | ||
* Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change), Yes/No <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | * Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change), Yes/No <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
* Blocks product? product <!-- Applicable for Changes that blocks specific product release/Fedora.next --> | * Blocks product? product <!-- Applicable for Changes that blocks specific product release/Fedora.next --> | ||
If it all falls on the floor, we can delay the update to NSS_PKCS11_3_0_STRICT by default. None of the mitigation strategies care about what the default value is | |||
== Documentation == | == Documentation == | ||
| Line 174: | Line 243: | ||
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES --> | ||
Description contains the notes that upstream is working on, modified for fedora. I'll include links once upstream has released them. | |||
== Release Notes == | == Release Notes == | ||
| Line 182: | Line 251: | ||
Release Notes are not required for initial draft of the Change Proposal but has to be completed by the Change Freeze. | Release Notes are not required for initial draft of the Change Proposal but has to be completed by the Change Freeze. | ||
--> | --> | ||
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. | |||
Revision as of 16:23, 20 May 2020
Change Proposal Name
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 CK_GCM_PARAMS in a source incompatible way. Upstream made this change in 3.52.
Owner
- Name: Bob Relyea
- Owners of other packages are unknown.
- Email: rrelyea@redhat.com
Current status
- Targeted release: Fedora 34
- Last updated: 2020-05-20
- FESCo issue: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
- Tracker bug: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
- Release notes tracker: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
Detailed Description
PKCS #11 2.40 had a mismatch between the SPEC and the released header file for CK_GCM_PARAMS. The latter is controlling. We created or header based on the former. In PKCS #11 v3.0 the reconciled this, but it left us with. The new (to NSS) definition has a new field ulIvBits, which must be set correctly.
To solve this, the NSS 3.52 headers has both definitions: CK_NSS_GCM_PARAMS is the original NSS definition and CK_GCM_PARAMS_V3 is the new (to NSS) definition. CK_GCM_PARAMS takes on one or the other based on the definition of NSS_PKCS11_2_0_COMPAT.
The current NSS builds in fedora have changes the sense of this #define to NSS_PKCS11_3_0_STRICT to get 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.
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, but may break on newer tokens that use the new definition (same as the previous behavior.
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 2 it may break on newer tokens.
option 3
rename 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 run 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.
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 these options by fedora 34 or their rebuilt packages will fail at runtime.
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, but may break on newer tokens that use the new definition (same as the previous behavior.
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 2 it may break on newer tokens.
option 3
rename 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 run 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.
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.
- Release engineering: #Releng issue number (a check of an impact with Release Engineering is needed)
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:
Thid doesn't
- Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
Upgrade/compatibility impact
How To Test
1. Grep for CK_AES_GCM_PARAMS in our source tree. If it does not appear, no further action is needed. 2. 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 3. 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. 4. 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.
Contingency Plan
- Contingency mechanism: (What to do? Who will do it?) N/A (not a System Wide Change)
- Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
- Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change), Yes/No
- Blocks product? product
If it all falls on the floor, we can delay the update to NSS_PKCS11_3_0_STRICT by default. None of the mitigation strategies care about what the default value is
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.