Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

proposal: crypto/tls: support QUIC as a transport #44886

Open
neild opened this issue Mar 9, 2021 · 5 comments
Open

proposal: crypto/tls: support QUIC as a transport #44886

neild opened this issue Mar 9, 2021 · 5 comments
Labels
Proposal Proposal-Crypto Proposal related to crypto packages or other security issues
Milestone

Comments

@neild
Copy link
Contributor

neild commented Mar 9, 2021

QUIC is the transport protocol underlying HTTP/3, as detailed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-tls-34. A QUIC implementation requires an unusually tight coupling with TLS; quoting the draft:

Rather than a strict layering, these two protocols cooperate: QUIC uses the TLS handshake; TLS uses the reliability, ordered delivery, and record layer provided by QUIC.

The crypto/tls package does not currently provide an API suitable for use by a QUIC implementation. I propose that we add one.

Related background

BoringSSL provides a set of functions specifically for use by QUIC implementations:
https://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/chromium-boringssl-docs/ssl.h.html#QUIC-integration

The quic-go QUIC implementation uses a fork of crypto/tls. The quic-go fork adds a RecordLayer interface, which is quite similar to the BoringSSL API.

A QUIC implementation needs to:

  • accept TLS handshake bytes to send to the peer
  • provide TLS handshake bytes received from the peer
  • learn the read and write secrets and cipher suites for the connection
  • receive TLS alerts
  • communicate transport parameters in the quic_transport_parameters TLS extension

BoringSSL and the quic-go fork of crypto/tls both provide these capabilities.

The quic-go fork provide additional extensions to crypto/tls around the handling of early data and session tickets. Those changes are out of scope for this proposal, which addresses only the QUIC-specific need to replace the record layer.

Proposed API changes

package tls

// EncryptionLevel represents a QUIC encryption level used to transmit
// handshake messages.
type EncryptionLevel int

const (
  EncryptionLevelInitial = iota
  EncryptionLevelEarlyData
  EncryptionLevelHandshake
  EncryptionLevelApplication
)

// QUICTransport describes hooks used by a QUIC implementation.
//
// If any QUICTransport function returns an error, the QUIC handshake will
// be terminated.
//
// It is an error to call Read, Write, or CloseWrite on a connection with
// a non-nil QUICTransport.
type QUICTransport struct {
  // SetReadSecret configures the read secret and cipher suite for the given
  // encryption level. It will be called at most once per encryption level.
  //
  // QUIC ACKs packets at the same level they were received at, except that
  // early data (0-RTT) packets trigger application (1-RTT) acks. ACK-writing
  // keys will always be installed with SetWriteSecret before the
  // packet-reading keys with SetReadSecret, ensuring that QUIC can always
  // ACK any packet that it decrypts.
  SetReadSecret func(level EncryptionLevel, suite uint16, secret []byte) error

  // SetWriteSecret configures the write secret and cipher suite for the
  // given encryption level. It will be called at most once per encryption
  // level.
  //
  // See SetReadSecret for additional invariants between packets and their
  // ACKs.
  SetWriteSecret func(level EncryptionLevel, suite uint16, secret []byte) error

  // WriteHandshakeData adds handshake data to the current flight at the
  // given encryption level.
  //
  // A single handshake flight may include data from multiple encryption
  // levels. QUIC implementations should defer writing data to the network
  // until FlushHandshakeData to better pack QUIC packets into transport
  // datagrams.
  WriteHandshakeData func(level EncryptionLevel, data []byte) error

  // FlushHandshakeData is called when the current flight is complete and
  // should be written to the transport. Note that a flight may contain
  // data at several encryption levels.
  FlushHandshakeData func() error

  // ReadHandshakeData is called to request handshake data. It follows the
  // same contract as io.Reader's Read method, but returns the encryption
  // level of the data as well as the number of bytes read and error.
  //
  // ReadHandshakeData must not combine data from multiple encryption levels.
  //
  // ReadHandshakeData must block until at least one byte of data is
  // available, and must return as soon as least one byte of data is
  // available.
  ReadHandshakeData func(p []byte) (level EncryptionLevel, n int, err error)

  // Alert sends a fatal alert at the specified encryption level.
  //
  // If the level is not EncryptionLevelInitial, this function will not
  // be called before the write secret for the level is initialized.
  Alert func(EncryptionLevel, uint8)

  // SetTransportParameters provides the extension_data field of the
  // quic_transport_parameters extension sent by the peer. It will
  // always be called before the successful completion of a handshake.
  SetTransportParameters func([]byte)

  // GetTransportParameters returns the extension_data field of the
  // quic_transport_parameters extension to send to the peer.
  GetTransportParameters func() []byte
}

type Config struct {
  // If QUICTransport is non-nil, it replaces the TLS transport layer.
  // In this case, MinVersion and MaxVersion must be VersionTLS13.
  QUICTransport *QUICTransport
}

// ProcessQUICPostHandshake processes data that has become available
// after the handshake has completed. It must not be called until
// Handshake has returned successfully. It causes a call to the
// QUICTransport ReadHandshakeData function requesting the new data.
func (c *Conn) ProcessQUICPostHandshake() error { … }
@gopherbot gopherbot added this to the Proposal milestone Mar 9, 2021
@neild
Copy link
Contributor Author

neild commented Mar 9, 2021

@ianlancetaylor ianlancetaylor added this to Incoming in Proposals (old) Mar 9, 2021
@ianlancetaylor ianlancetaylor added the Proposal-Crypto Proposal related to crypto packages or other security issues label Mar 9, 2021
@marten-seemann
Copy link
Contributor

marten-seemann commented Mar 10, 2021

Thank you @neild! I really like the API you're proposing.

A few thoughts:

  1. ALPN: QUIC mandates the use of ALPN (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-tls-34#section-8.1). In particular, it requires that the handhake fails if client and server can't agree on an application protocol. crypto/tls currently doesn't enforce this. We would need to enforce this check if Config.QUICTransport is set (no additional API required).
  2. Transport Parameters: We should guarantee that GetTransportParameters is called before SetTransportParameters on the server side (this is trivially possible, as the client's transport parameters are sent in the ClientHello. We just need to document it). Transport parameters are used to negotiate QUIC extensions, so a server might modify its transport parameters based on what it received from the client.
  3. WriteHandshakeData: not sure if we need the encryption level here. TLS writes messages in ascending order, i.e. it first writes all data at the Initial level, then at Handshake level, then at Application level. Once it's done with one level, it never goes back.
    In my crypto/tls fork the (admittedly insufficiently documented) contract is that after SetWriteSecret was called for encryption level X, all data written belongs to that encryption level, until SetWriteSecret is called for encryption level X+1.
    I really like the idea of explicitly setting the boundaries between flights with FlushHandshakeData, that would simplify packet generation quite a bit.
  4. You defined a EncryptionLevelEarlyData, but I'm not sure if QUIC 0-RTT is in scope here (note that crypto/tls doesn't currently support 0-RTT for TLS1.3/TCP). In order to support 0-RTT, the QUIC server needs to be able to check if it wants to allow 0-RTT handshake (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-tls-34#section-4.6.2 for details). That means that a QUIC implementation needs to be able to:
    1. server: save the transport parameters used on the old connection in the session ticket
    2. server: restore it from the session ticket when the client tries to resume a connection
    3. server: decide if to accept / reject 0-RTT
    4. client: learn if 0-RTT was accepted or rejected.

@neild
Copy link
Contributor Author

neild commented Mar 10, 2021

  1. Is it necessary for crypto/tls to enforce application protocol negotiation? The QUIC layer could check the ConnectionState after the handshake completes to verify a protocol was negotiated.
  2. Guaranteeing that the client quic_transport_parameters extension is provided to the server before requesting transport parameters to send to the client sounds reasonable. (You said GetTransportParameters is called before SetTransportParameters, but I think you mean the other way around.)
  3. You're right that we technically don't need to provide the encryption level in WriteHandshakeData, but I think doing so makes it less likely the QUIC implementation passes data at the wrong encryption level. I'll defer to @FiloSottile's expertise here.
  4. I defined EncryptionLevelEarlyData, because that enum entry is the only component of the transport-layer API required to support early data. But I think you're right that there are other crypto/tls changes required to support 0-RTT. I think those changes are less QUIC-specific, and should probably be a separate proposal. I don't have a strong opinion on whether it's worth including the EncryptionLevelEarlyData enum entry before that proposal or not.

@marten-seemann
Copy link
Contributor

marten-seemann commented Mar 10, 2021

  1. The QUIC spec says that you "MUST immediately" close the connection if no application protocol is negotiated, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-tls-34#section-8.1. Not sure if right after handshake completion still qualifies as "immediately". I decided to throw the error as early as possible.
  2. Yes, that's what I meant.

@OneOfOne
Copy link
Contributor

OneOfOne commented Jul 29, 2021

Any progress?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Proposal Proposal-Crypto Proposal related to crypto packages or other security issues
Projects
Status: Incoming
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants