mirror of
https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs.git
synced 2025-01-18 18:56:28 +00:00
docs: add some accounting proposals
This commit is contained in:
parent
d0526ef2f9
commit
f17b9839ec
134
docs/accounts-introducer.txt
Normal file
134
docs/accounts-introducer.txt
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
|
||||
This is a proposal for handing accounts and quotas in Tahoe. Nothing is final
|
||||
yet.. we are still evaluating the options.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
= Account Management: Introducer-based =
|
||||
|
||||
A Tahoe grid can be configured in several different modes. The simplest mode
|
||||
(which is also the default) is completely permissive: all storage servers
|
||||
will accept shares from all clients, and no attempt is made to keep track of
|
||||
who is storing what. Access to the grid is mostly equivalent to having access
|
||||
to the Introducer (or convincing one of the existing members to give you a
|
||||
list of all their storage server FURLs).
|
||||
|
||||
This mode, while a good starting point, does not accomodate any sort of
|
||||
auditing or quota management. Even in a small friendnet, operators might like
|
||||
to know how much of their storage space is being consumed by Alice, so they
|
||||
might be able to ask her to cut back when overall disk usage is getting to
|
||||
high. In a larger commercial deployment, a service provider needs to be able
|
||||
to get accurate usage numbers so they can bill the user appropriately. In
|
||||
addition, the operator may want the ability to delete all of Bob's shares
|
||||
(i.e. cancel any outstanding leases) when he terminates his account.
|
||||
|
||||
There are several lease-management/garbage-collection/deletion strategies
|
||||
possible for a Tahoe grid, but the most efficient ones require knowledge of
|
||||
lease ownership, so that renewals and expiration can take place on a
|
||||
per-account basis rather than a (more numerous) per-share basis.
|
||||
|
||||
== Accounts ==
|
||||
|
||||
To accomplish this, "Accounts" can be established in a Tahoe grid. There is
|
||||
nominally one account per human user of the grid, but of course a user might
|
||||
use multiple accounts, or an account might be shared between multiple users.
|
||||
The Account is the smallest unit of quota and lease management.
|
||||
|
||||
Accounts are created by an "Account Manager". In a commercial network there
|
||||
will be just one (centralized) account manager, and all storage nodes will be
|
||||
configured to require a valid account before providing storage services. In a
|
||||
friendnet, each peer can run their own account manager, and servers will
|
||||
accept accounts from any of the managers (this mode is permissive but allows
|
||||
quota-tracking of non-malicious users).
|
||||
|
||||
The account manager is free to manage the accounts as it pleases. Large
|
||||
systems will probably use a database to correlate things like username,
|
||||
storage consumed, billing status, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
== Overview ==
|
||||
|
||||
The Account Manager ("AM") replaces the normal Introducer node: grids which
|
||||
use an Account Manager will not run an Introducer, and the participating
|
||||
nodes will not be configured with an "introducer.furl".
|
||||
|
||||
Instead, each client will be configured with a different "account.furl",
|
||||
which gives that client access to a specific account. These account FURLs
|
||||
point to an object inside the Account Manager which exists solely for the
|
||||
benefit of that one account. When the client needs access to storage servers,
|
||||
it will use this account object to acquire personalized introductions to a
|
||||
per-account "Personal Storage Server" facet, one per storage server node. For
|
||||
example, Alice would wind up with PSS[1A] on server 1, and PSS[2A] on server
|
||||
2. Bob would get PSS[1B] and PSS[2B].
|
||||
|
||||
These PSS facets provide the same remote methods as the old generic SS facet,
|
||||
except that every time they create a lease object, the account information of
|
||||
the holder is recorded in that lease. The client stores a list of these PSS
|
||||
facet FURLs in persistent storage, and uses them in the "get_permuted_peers"
|
||||
function that all uploads and downloads use to figure out who to talk to when
|
||||
looking for shares or shareholders.
|
||||
|
||||
Each Storage Server has a private facet that it gives to the Account Manager.
|
||||
This facet allows the AM to create PSS facets for a specific account. In
|
||||
particular, the AM tells the SS "please create account number 42, and tell me
|
||||
the PSS FURL that I should give to the client". The SS creates an object
|
||||
which remembers the account number, creates a FURL for it, and returns the
|
||||
FURL.
|
||||
|
||||
If there is a single central account manager, then account numbers can be
|
||||
small integers. (if there are multiple ones, they need to be large random
|
||||
strings to ensure uniqueness). To avoid requiring large (accounts*servers)
|
||||
lookup tables, a given account should use the same identifer for all the
|
||||
servers it talks to. When this can be done, the PSS and Account FURLs are
|
||||
generated as MAC'ed copies of the account number.
|
||||
|
||||
More specifically, the PSS FURL is a MAC'ed copy of the account number: each
|
||||
SS has a private secret "S", and it creates a string "%d-%s" % (accountnum,
|
||||
b2a(hash(S+accountnum))) to use as the swissnum part of the FURL. The SS uses
|
||||
tub.registerNameLookupHandler to add a function that tries to validate
|
||||
inbound FURLs against this scheme: if successful, it creates a new PSS object
|
||||
with the account number stashed inside. This allows the server to minimize
|
||||
their per-user storage requirements but still insure that PSS FURLs are
|
||||
unguessable.
|
||||
|
||||
Account FURLs are created by the Account Manager in a similar fashion, using
|
||||
a MAC of the account number. The Account Manager can use the same account
|
||||
number to index other information in a database, like account status, billing
|
||||
status, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
The mechanism by which Account FURLs are minted is left up to the account
|
||||
manager, but the simple AM that the 'tahoe create-account-manager' command
|
||||
makes has a "new-account" FURL which accepts a username and creates an
|
||||
account for them. The 'tahoe create-account' command is a CLI frontend to
|
||||
this facility. In a friendnet, you could publish this FURL to your friends,
|
||||
allowing everyone to make their own account. In a commercial grid, this
|
||||
facility would be reserved use by the same code which handles billing.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Creating the Account Manager ==
|
||||
|
||||
The 'tahoe create-account-manager' command is used to create a simple account
|
||||
manager node. When started, this node will write several FURLs to its
|
||||
private/ directory, some of which should be provided to other services.
|
||||
|
||||
* new-account.furl : this FURL allows the holder to create new accounts
|
||||
* manage-accounts.furl : this FURL allows the holder to list and modify
|
||||
all existing accounts
|
||||
* serverdesk.furl : this FURL is used by storage servers to make themselves
|
||||
available to all account holders
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Configuring the Storage Servers ==
|
||||
|
||||
To use an account manager, each storage server node should be given access to
|
||||
the AM's serverdesk (by simply copying "serverdesk.furl" into the storage
|
||||
server's base directory). In addition, it should *not* be given an
|
||||
introducer.furl . The serverdesk FURL tells the SS that it should allow the
|
||||
AM to create PSS facets for each account, and the lack of an introducer FURL
|
||||
tells the SS to not make its generic SS facet available to anyone. The
|
||||
combination means that clients must acquire PSS facets instead of using the
|
||||
generic one.
|
||||
|
||||
== Configuring Clients ==
|
||||
|
||||
Each client should be configured to use a specific account by copying their
|
||||
account FURL into their basedir, in a file named "account.furl". In addition,
|
||||
these client nodes should *not* have an "introducer.furl". This combination
|
||||
tells the client to ask the AM for ...
|
636
docs/accounts-pubkey.txt
Normal file
636
docs/accounts-pubkey.txt
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,636 @@
|
||||
This is a proposal for handing accounts and quotas in Tahoe. Nothing is final
|
||||
yet.. we are still evaluating the options.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
= Accounts =
|
||||
|
||||
The basic Tahoe account is defined by a DSA key pair. The holder of the
|
||||
private key has the ability to consume storage in conjunction with a specific
|
||||
account number.
|
||||
|
||||
The Account Server has a long-term keypair. Valid accounts are marked as such
|
||||
by the Account Server's signature on a "membership card", which binds a
|
||||
specific pubkey to an account number and declares that this pair is a valid
|
||||
account.
|
||||
|
||||
Each Storage Server which participages in the AS's domain will have the AS's
|
||||
pubkey in its list of valid AS keys, and will thus accept membership cards
|
||||
that were signed by that AS. If the SS accepts multiple ASs, then it will
|
||||
give each a distinct number, and leases will be labled with an (AS#,Account#)
|
||||
pair. If there is only one AS, then leases will be labeled with just the
|
||||
Account#.
|
||||
|
||||
Each client node is given the FURL of their personal Account object. The
|
||||
Account will accept a DSA public key and return a signed membership card that
|
||||
authorizes the corresponding private key to consume storage on behalf of the
|
||||
account. The client will create its own DSA keypair the first time it
|
||||
connects to the Account, and will then use the resulting membership card for
|
||||
all subsequent storage operations.
|
||||
|
||||
== Storage Server Goals ==
|
||||
|
||||
The Storage Server cares about two things:
|
||||
|
||||
1: maintaining an accurate refcount on each bucket, so it can delete the
|
||||
bucket when the refcount goes to zero
|
||||
2: being able to answer questions about aggregate usage per account
|
||||
|
||||
The SS conceptually maintains a big matrix of lease information: one column
|
||||
per account, one row per storage index. The cells contain a boolean
|
||||
(has-lease or no-lease). If the grid uses per-lease timers, then each
|
||||
has-lease cell also contains a lease timer.
|
||||
|
||||
This matrix may be stored in a variety of ways: entries in each share file,
|
||||
or items in a SQL database, according to the desired tradeoff between
|
||||
complexity, robustness, read speed, and write speed.
|
||||
|
||||
Each client (by virtue of their knowledge of an authorized private key) gets
|
||||
to manipulate their column of this matrix in any way they like: add lease,
|
||||
renew lease, delete lease. (TODO: for reconcilliation purposes, the should
|
||||
also be able to enumerate leases).
|
||||
|
||||
== Storage Operations ==
|
||||
|
||||
Side-effect-causing storage operations come in three forms:
|
||||
|
||||
1: allocate bucket / add lease to existing bucket
|
||||
arguments: storage_index=, storage_server=, ueb_hash=, account=
|
||||
2: renew lease
|
||||
arguments: storage_index=, storage_server=, account=
|
||||
3: cancel lease
|
||||
arguments: storage_index=, storage_server=, account=
|
||||
|
||||
(where lease renewal is only relevant for grids which use per-lease timers).
|
||||
Clients do add-lease when they upload a file, and cancel-lease when they
|
||||
remove their last reference to it.
|
||||
|
||||
Storage Servers publish a "public storage port" through the introducer, which
|
||||
does not actually enable storage operations, but is instead used in a
|
||||
rights-amplification pattern to grant authorized parties access to a
|
||||
"personal storage server facet". This personal facet is the one that
|
||||
implements allocate_bucket. All clients get access to the same public storage
|
||||
port, which means that we can improve the introduction mechanism later (to
|
||||
use a gossip-based protocol) without affecting the authority-granting
|
||||
protocols.
|
||||
|
||||
The public storage port accepts signed messages asking for storage authority.
|
||||
It responds by creating a personal facet and making it available to the
|
||||
requester. The account number is curried into the facet, so that all
|
||||
lease-creating operations will record this account number into the lease. By
|
||||
restricting the nature of the personal facets that a client can access, we
|
||||
restrict them to using their designated account number.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
========================================
|
||||
|
||||
There are two kinds of signed messages: use (other names: connection,
|
||||
FURLification, activation, reification, grounding, specific-making, ?), and
|
||||
delegation. The FURLification message results in a FURL that points to an
|
||||
object which can actually accept RIStorageServer methods. The delegation
|
||||
message results in a new signed message.
|
||||
|
||||
The furlification message looks like:
|
||||
|
||||
(pubkey, signed(serialized({limitations}, beneficiary_furl)))
|
||||
|
||||
The delegation message looks like:
|
||||
|
||||
(pubkey, signed(serialized({limitations}, delegate_pubkey)))
|
||||
|
||||
The limitations dict indicates what the resulting connection or delegation
|
||||
can be used for. All limitations for the cert chain are applied, and the
|
||||
result must be restricted to their overall minimum.
|
||||
|
||||
The following limitation keys are defined:
|
||||
|
||||
'account': a number. All resulting leases must be tagged with this account
|
||||
number. A chain with multiple distinct 'account' limitations is
|
||||
an error (the result will not permit leases)
|
||||
'SI': a storage index (binary string). Leases may only be created for this
|
||||
specific storage index, no other.
|
||||
'serverid': a peerid (binary string). Leases may only be created on the
|
||||
storage server identified by this serverid.
|
||||
'UEB_hash': (binary string): Leases may only be created for shares which
|
||||
contain a matching UEB_hash. Note: this limitation is a nuisance
|
||||
to implement correctly: it requires that the storage server
|
||||
parse the share and verify all hashes.
|
||||
'before': a timestamp (seconds since epoch). All leases must be made before
|
||||
this time. In addition, all liverefs and FURLs must expire and
|
||||
cease working at this time.
|
||||
'server_size': a number, measuring share size (in bytes). A storage server
|
||||
which sees this message should keep track of how much storage
|
||||
space has been consumed using this liveref/FURL, and throw
|
||||
an exception when receiving a lease request that would bring
|
||||
this total above 'server_size'. Note: this limitation is
|
||||
a nuisance to implement (it works best if 'before' is used
|
||||
and provides a short lifetime).
|
||||
|
||||
Actually, let's merge the two, and put the type in the limitations dict.
|
||||
'furl_to' and 'delegate_key' are mutually exclusive.
|
||||
|
||||
'furl_to': (string): Used only on furlification messages. This requests the
|
||||
recipient to create an object which implements the given access,
|
||||
then send a FURL which references this object to an
|
||||
RIFURLReceiver.furl() call at the given 'furl_to' FURL:
|
||||
facet = create_storage_facet(limitations)
|
||||
facet_furl = tub.registerReference(facet)
|
||||
d = tub.getReference(limitations['furl_to'])
|
||||
d.addCallback(lambda rref: rref.furl(facet_furl))
|
||||
The facet_furl should be persistent, so to reduce storage space,
|
||||
facet_furl should contain an HMAC'ed list of all limitations, and
|
||||
create_storage_facet() should be deferred until the client
|
||||
actually tries to use the furl. This leads to 150-200 byte base32
|
||||
swissnums.
|
||||
'delegate_key': (binary string, a DSA pubkey). Used only on delegation
|
||||
messages. This requests all observers to accept messages
|
||||
signed by the given public key and to apply the associated
|
||||
limitations.
|
||||
|
||||
I also want to keep the message size small, so I'm going to define a custom
|
||||
netstring-based encoding format for it (JSON expands binary data by about
|
||||
3.5x). Each dict entry will be encoded as netstring(key)+netstring(value).
|
||||
The container is responsible for providing the size of this serialized
|
||||
structure.
|
||||
|
||||
The actual message will then look like:
|
||||
|
||||
def make_message(privkey, limitations):
|
||||
message_to_sign = "".join([ netstring(k) + netstring(v)
|
||||
for k,v in limitations ])
|
||||
signature = privkey.sign(message_to_sign)
|
||||
pubkey = privkey.get_public_key()
|
||||
msg = netstring(message_to_sign) + netstring(signature) + netstring(pubkey)
|
||||
return msg
|
||||
|
||||
The deserialization code MUST throw an exception if the same limitations key
|
||||
appears twice, to ensure that everybody interprets the dict the same way.
|
||||
|
||||
These messages are passed over foolscap connections as a single string. They
|
||||
are also saved to disk in this format. Code should only store them in a
|
||||
deserialized form if the signature has been verified, the cert chain
|
||||
verified, and the limitations accumulated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
The membership card is just the following:
|
||||
|
||||
membership_card = make_message(account_server_privkey,
|
||||
{'account': account_number,
|
||||
'before': time.time() + 1*MONTH,
|
||||
'delegate_key': client_pubkey})
|
||||
|
||||
This card is provided on demand by the given user's Account facet, for
|
||||
whatever pubkey they submit.
|
||||
|
||||
When a client learns about a new storage server, they create a new receiver
|
||||
object (and stash the peerid in it), and submit the following message to the
|
||||
RIStorageServerWelcome.get_personal_facet() method:
|
||||
|
||||
mymsg = make_message(client_privkey, {'furl_to': receiver_furl})
|
||||
send(membership_card, mymsg)
|
||||
|
||||
(note that the receiver_furl will probably not have a routeable address, but
|
||||
this won't matter because the client is already attached, so foolscap can use
|
||||
the existing connection.)
|
||||
|
||||
The server will validate the cert chain (see below) and wind up with a
|
||||
complete list of limitations that are to be applied to the facet it will
|
||||
provide to the caller. This list must combine limitations from the entire
|
||||
chain: in particular it must enforce the account= limitation from the
|
||||
membership card.
|
||||
|
||||
The server will then serialize this limitation dict into a string, compute a
|
||||
fixed-size HMAC code using a server-private secret, then base32 encode the
|
||||
(hmac+limitstring) value (and prepend a "0-" version indicator). The
|
||||
resulting string is used as the swissnum portion of the FURL that is sent to
|
||||
the furl_to target.
|
||||
|
||||
Later, when the client tries to dereference this FURL, a
|
||||
Tub.registerNameLookupHandler hook will notice the attempt, claim the "0-"
|
||||
namespace, base32decode the string, check the HMAC, decode the limitation
|
||||
dict, then create and return an RIStorageServer facet with these limitations.
|
||||
|
||||
The client should cache the (peerid, FURL) mapping in persistent storage.
|
||||
Later, when it learns about this storage server again, it will use the cached
|
||||
FURL instead of signing another message. If the getReference or the storage
|
||||
operation fails with StorageAuthorityExpiredError, the cache entry should be
|
||||
removed and the client should sign a new message to obtain a new one.
|
||||
|
||||
(security note: an evil storage server can take 'mymsg' and present it to
|
||||
someone else, but other servers will only send the resulting authority to
|
||||
the client's receiver_furl, so the evil server cannot benefit from this. The
|
||||
receiver object has the serverid curried into it, so the evil server can
|
||||
only affect the client's mapping for this one serverid, not anything else,
|
||||
so the server cannot hurt the client in any way other than denying service
|
||||
to itself. It might be a good idea to include serverid= in the message, but
|
||||
it isn't clear that it really helps anything).
|
||||
|
||||
When the client wants to use a Helper, it needs to delegate some amount of
|
||||
storage authority to the helper. The first phase has the client send the
|
||||
storage index to the helper, so it can query servers and decide whether the
|
||||
file needs to be uploaded or not. If it decides yes, the Helper creates a new
|
||||
Uploader object and a receiver object, and sends the Uploader liveref and the
|
||||
receiver FURL to the client.
|
||||
|
||||
The client then creates a message for the helper to use:
|
||||
|
||||
helper_msg = make_message(client_privkey, {'furl_to': helper_rx_furl,
|
||||
'SI': storage_index,
|
||||
'before': time.time() + 1*DAY, #?
|
||||
'server_size': filesize/k+overhead,
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
The client then sends (membership_card, helper_msg) to the helper. The Helper
|
||||
sends (membership_card, helper_msg) to each storage server that it needs to
|
||||
use for the upload. This gives the Helper access to a limited facet on each
|
||||
storage server. This facet gives the helper the authority to upload data for
|
||||
a specific storage index, for a limited time, using leases that are tagged by
|
||||
the user's account number. The helper cannot use the client's storage
|
||||
authority for any other file. The size limit prevents the helper from storing
|
||||
some other (larger) file of its own using this authority. The time
|
||||
restriction allows the storage servers to expire their 'server_size' table
|
||||
entry quickly, and prevents the helper from hanging on to the storage
|
||||
authority indefinitely.
|
||||
|
||||
The Helper only gets one furl_to target, which must be used for multiple SS
|
||||
peerids. The helper's receiver must parse the FURL that gets returned to
|
||||
determine which server is which. [problems: an evil server could deliver a
|
||||
bogus FURL which points to a different server. The Helper might reject the
|
||||
real server's good FURL as a duplicate. This allows an evil server to block
|
||||
access to a good server. Queries could be sent sequentially, which would
|
||||
partially mitigate this problem (an evil server could send multiple
|
||||
requests). Better: if the cert-chain send message could include a nonce,
|
||||
which is supposed to be returned with the FURL, then the helper could use
|
||||
this to correlate sends and receives.]
|
||||
|
||||
=== repair caps ===
|
||||
|
||||
There are three basic approaches to provide a Repairer with the storage
|
||||
authority that it needs. The first is to give the Repairer complete
|
||||
authority: allow it to place leases for whatever account number it wishes.
|
||||
This is simple and requires the least overhead, but of course it give the
|
||||
Repairer the ability to abuse everyone's quota. The second is to give the
|
||||
Repairer no user authority: instead, give the repairer its own account, and
|
||||
build it to keep track of which leases it is holding on behalf of one of its
|
||||
customers. This repairer will slowly accumulate quota space over time, as it
|
||||
creates new shares to replace ones that have decayed. Eventually, when the
|
||||
client comes back online, the client should establish its own leases on these
|
||||
new shares and allow the repairer to cancel its temporary ones.
|
||||
|
||||
The third approach is in between the other two: give the repairer some
|
||||
limited authority over the customer's account, but not enough to let it
|
||||
consume the user's whole quota.
|
||||
|
||||
To create the storage-authority portion of a (one-month) repair-cap, the
|
||||
client creates a new DSA keypair (repair_privkey, repair_pubkey), and then
|
||||
creates a signed message and bundles it into the repaircap:
|
||||
|
||||
repair_msg = make_message(client_privkey, {'delegate_key': repair_pubkey,
|
||||
'SI': storage_index,
|
||||
'UEB_hash': file_ueb_hash})
|
||||
repair_cap = (verify_cap, repair_privkey, (membership_card, repair_msg))
|
||||
|
||||
This gives the holder of the repair cap a time-limited authority to upload
|
||||
shares for the given storage index which contain the given data. This
|
||||
prohibits the repair-cap from being used to upload or repair any other file.
|
||||
|
||||
When the repairer needs to upload a new share, it will use the delegated key
|
||||
to create its own signed message:
|
||||
|
||||
upload_msg = make_message(repair_privkey, {'furl_to': repairer_rx_furl})
|
||||
send(membership_card, repair_msg, upload_msg)
|
||||
|
||||
The biggest problem with the low-authority approaches is the expiration time
|
||||
of the membership card, which limits the duration for which the repair-cap
|
||||
authority is valid. It would be nice if repair-caps could last a long time,
|
||||
years perhaps, so that clients can be offline for a similar period of time.
|
||||
However to retain a reasonable revocation interval for users, the membership
|
||||
card's before= timeout needs to be closer to a month. [it might be reasonable
|
||||
to use some sort of rights-amplification: the repairer has a special cert
|
||||
which allows it to remove the before= value from a chain].
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== chain verification ===
|
||||
|
||||
The server will create a chain that starts with the AS's certificate: an
|
||||
unsigned message which derives its authority from being manually placed in
|
||||
the SS's configdir. The only limitation in the AS certificate will be on some
|
||||
kind of meta-account, in case we want to use multiple account servers and
|
||||
allow their account numbers to live in distinct number spaces (think
|
||||
sub-accounts or business partners to buy storage in bulk and resell it to
|
||||
users). The rest of the chain comes directly from what the client sent.
|
||||
|
||||
The server walks the chain, keeping an accumulated limitations dictionary
|
||||
along the way. At each step it knows the pubkey that was delegated by the
|
||||
previous step.
|
||||
|
||||
== client config ==
|
||||
|
||||
Clients are configured with an Account FURL that points to a private facet on
|
||||
the Account Server. The client generates a private key at startup. It sends
|
||||
the pubkey to the AS facet, which will return a signed delegate_key message
|
||||
(the "membership card") that grants the client's privkey any storage
|
||||
authority it wishes (as long as the account number is set to a specific
|
||||
value).
|
||||
|
||||
The client stores this membership card in private/membership.cert .
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
RIStorageServer messages will accept an optional account= argument. If left
|
||||
unspecified, the value is taken from the limitations that were curried into
|
||||
the SS facet. In all cases, the value used must meet those limitations. The
|
||||
value must not be None: Helpers/Repairers or other super-powered storage
|
||||
clients are obligated to specify an account number.
|
||||
|
||||
== server config ==
|
||||
|
||||
Storage servers are configured with an unsigned root authority message. This
|
||||
is like the output of make_message(account_server_privkey, {}) but has empty
|
||||
'signature' and 'pubkey' strings. This root goes into
|
||||
NODEDIR/storage_authority_root.cert . It is prepended to all chains that
|
||||
arrive.
|
||||
|
||||
[if/when we accept multiple authorities, storage_authority_root.cert will
|
||||
turn into a storage_authority_root/ directory with *.cert files, and each
|
||||
arriving chain will cause a search through these root certs for a matching
|
||||
pubkey. The empty limitations will be replaced by {domain=X}, which is used
|
||||
as a sort of meta-account.. the details depend upon whether we express
|
||||
account numbers as an int (with various ranges) or as a tuple]
|
||||
|
||||
The root authority message is published by the Account Server through its web
|
||||
interface, and also into a local file: NODEDIR/storage_authority_root.cert .
|
||||
The admin of the storage server is responsible for copying this file into
|
||||
place, thus enabling clients to use storage services.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
----------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
-- Text beyond this point is out-of-date, and exists purely for background --
|
||||
|
||||
Each storage server offers a "public storage port", which only accepts signed
|
||||
messages. The Introducer mechanism exists to give clients a reference to a
|
||||
set of these public storage ports. All clients get access to the same ports.
|
||||
If clients did all their work themselves, these public storage ports would be
|
||||
enough, and no further code would be necessary (all storage requests would we
|
||||
signed the same way).
|
||||
|
||||
Fundamentally, each storage request must be signed by the account's private
|
||||
key, giving the SS an authenticated Account Number to go with the request.
|
||||
This is used to index the correct cell in the lease matrix. The holder of the
|
||||
account privkey is allowed to manipulate their column of the matrix in any
|
||||
way they like: add leases, renew leases, delete leases. (TODO: for
|
||||
reconcilliation purposes, they should also be able to enumerate leases). The
|
||||
storage request is sent in the form of a signed request message, accompanied
|
||||
by the membership card. For example:
|
||||
|
||||
req = SIGN("allocate SI=123 SSID=abc", accountprivkey) , membership_card
|
||||
-> RemoteBucketWriter reference
|
||||
|
||||
Upon receipt of this request, the storage server will return a reference to a
|
||||
RemoteBucketWriter object, which the client can use to fill and close the
|
||||
bucket. The SS must perform two DSA signature verifications before accepting
|
||||
this request. The first is to validate the membership card: the Account
|
||||
Server's pubkey is used to verify the membership card's signature, from which
|
||||
an account pubkey and account# is extracted. The second is to validate the
|
||||
request: the account pubkey is used to verify the request signature. If both
|
||||
are valid, the full request (with account# and storage index) is delivered to
|
||||
the internal StorageServer object.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that the signed request message includes the Storage Server's node ID,
|
||||
to prevent this storage server from taking the signed message and echoing to
|
||||
other storage servers. Each SS will ignore any request that is not addressed
|
||||
to the right SSID. Also note that the SI= and SSID= fields may contain
|
||||
wildcards, if the signing client so chooses.
|
||||
|
||||
== Caching Signature Verification ==
|
||||
|
||||
We add some complexity to this simple model to achieve two goals: to enable
|
||||
fine-grained delegation of storage capabilities (specifically for renewers
|
||||
and repairers), and to reduce the number of public-key crypto operations that
|
||||
must be performed.
|
||||
|
||||
The first enhancement is to allow the SS to cache the results of the
|
||||
verification step. To do this, the client creates a signed message which asks
|
||||
the SS to return a FURL of an object which can be used to execute further
|
||||
operations *without* a DSA signature. The FURL is expected to contain a
|
||||
MAC'ed string that contains the account# and the argument restrictions,
|
||||
effectively currying a subset of arguments into the RemoteReference. Clients
|
||||
which do all their operations themselves would use this to obtain a private
|
||||
storage port for each public storage port, stashing the FURLs in a local
|
||||
table, and then later storage operations would be done to those FURLs instead
|
||||
of creating signed requests. For example:
|
||||
|
||||
req = SIGN("FURL(allocate SI=* SSID=abc)", accountprivkey), membership_card
|
||||
-> FURL
|
||||
Tub.getReference(FURL).allocate(SI=123) -> RemoteBucketWriter reference
|
||||
|
||||
== Renewers and Repairers
|
||||
|
||||
A brief digression is in order, to motivate the other enhancement. The
|
||||
"manifest" is a list of caps, one for each node that is reachable from the
|
||||
user's root directory/directories. The client is expected to generate the
|
||||
manifest on a periodic basis (perhaps once a day), and to keep track of which
|
||||
files/dirnodes have been added and removed. Items which have been removed
|
||||
must be explicitly dereferenced to reclaim their storage space. For grids
|
||||
which use per-file lease timers, the manifest is used to drive the Renewer: a
|
||||
process which renews the lease timers on a periodic basis (perhaps once a
|
||||
week). The manifest can also be used to drive a Checker, which in turn feeds
|
||||
work into the Repairer.
|
||||
|
||||
The manifest should contain the minimum necessary authority to do its job,
|
||||
which generally means it contains the "verify cap" for each node. For
|
||||
immutable files, the verify cap contains the storage index and the UEB hash:
|
||||
enough information to retrieve and validate the ciphertext but not enough to
|
||||
decrypt it. For mutable files, the verify cap contains the storage index and
|
||||
the pubkey hash, which also serves to retrieve and validate ciphertext but
|
||||
not decrypt it.
|
||||
|
||||
If the client does its own Renewing and Repairing, then a verifycap-based
|
||||
manifest is sufficient. However, if the user wants to be able to turn their
|
||||
computer off for a few months and still keep their files around, they need to
|
||||
delegate this job off to some other willing node. In a commercial network,
|
||||
there will be centralized (and perhaps trusted) Renewer/Repairer nodes, but
|
||||
in a friendnet these may not be available, and the user will depend upon one
|
||||
of their friends being willing to run this service for them while they are
|
||||
away. In either of these cases, the verifycaps are not enough: the Renewer
|
||||
will need additional authority to renew the client's leases, and the Repairer
|
||||
will need the authority to create new shares (in the client's name) when
|
||||
necessary.
|
||||
|
||||
A trusted central service could be given all-account superpowers, allowing it
|
||||
to exercise storage authority on behalf of all users as it pleases. If this
|
||||
is the case, the verifycaps are sufficient. But if we desire to grant less
|
||||
authority to the Renewer/Repairer, then we need a mechanism to attenuate this
|
||||
authority.
|
||||
|
||||
The usual objcap approach is to create a proxy: an intermediate object which
|
||||
itself is given full authority, but which is unwilling to exercise more than
|
||||
a portion of that authority in response to incoming requests. The
|
||||
not-fully-trusted service is then only given access to the proxy, not the
|
||||
final authority. For example:
|
||||
|
||||
class Proxy(RemoteReference):
|
||||
def __init__(self, original, storage_index):
|
||||
self.original = original
|
||||
self.storage_index = storage_index
|
||||
def remote_renew_leases(self):
|
||||
return self.original.renew_leases(self.storage_index)
|
||||
renewer.grant(Proxy(target, "abcd"))
|
||||
|
||||
But this approach interposes the proxy in the calling chain, requiring the
|
||||
machine which hosts the proxy to be available and on-line at all times, which
|
||||
runs opposite to our use case (turning the client off for a month).
|
||||
|
||||
== Creating Attenuated Authorities ==
|
||||
|
||||
The other enhancement is to use more public-key operations to allow the
|
||||
delegation of reduced authority to external helper services. Specifically, we
|
||||
want to give then Renewer the ability to renew leases for a specific file,
|
||||
rather than giving it lease-renewal power for all files. Likewise, the
|
||||
Repairer should have the ability to create new shares, but only for the file
|
||||
that is being repaired, not for unrelated files.
|
||||
|
||||
If we do not mind giving the storage servers the ability to replay their
|
||||
inbound message to other storage servers, then the client can simply generate
|
||||
a signed message with a wildcard SSID= argument and leave it in the care of
|
||||
the Renewer or Repairer. For example, the Renewer would get:
|
||||
|
||||
SIGN("renew-lease SI=123 SSID=*", accountprivkey), membership_card
|
||||
|
||||
Then, when the Renewer needed to renew a lease, it would deliver this signed
|
||||
request message to the storage server. The SS would verify the signatures
|
||||
just as if the message came from the original client, find them good, and
|
||||
perform the desired operation. With this approach, the manifest that is
|
||||
delivered to the remote Renewer process needs to include a signed
|
||||
lease-renewal request for each file: we use the term "renew-cap" for this
|
||||
combined (verifycap + signed lease-renewal request) message. Likewise the
|
||||
"repair-cap" would be the verifycap plus a signed allocate-bucket message. A
|
||||
renew-cap manifest would be enough for a remote Renewer to do its job, a
|
||||
repair-cap manifest would provide a remote Repairer with enough authority,
|
||||
and a cancel-cap manifest would be used for a remote Canceller (used, e.g.,
|
||||
to make sure that file has been dereferenced even if the client does not
|
||||
stick around long enough to track down and inform all of the storage servers
|
||||
involved).
|
||||
|
||||
The only concern is that the SS could also take this exact same renew-lease
|
||||
message and deliver it to other storage servers. This wouldn't cause a
|
||||
concern for mere lease renewal, but the allocate-share message might be a bit
|
||||
less comfortable (you might not want to grant the first storage server the
|
||||
ability to claim space in your name on all other storage servers).
|
||||
|
||||
Ideally we'd like to send a different message to each storage server, each
|
||||
narrowed in scope to a single SSID, since then none of these messages would
|
||||
be useful on any other SS. If the client knew the identities of all the
|
||||
storage servers in the system ahead of time, it might create a whole slew of
|
||||
signed messages, but a) this is a lot of signatures, only a fraction of which
|
||||
will ever actually be used, and b) new servers might be introduced after the
|
||||
manifest is created, particularly if we're talking about repair-caps instead
|
||||
of renewal-caps. The Renewer can't generate these one-per-SSID messages from
|
||||
the SSID=* message, because it doesn't have a privkey to make the correct
|
||||
signatures. So without some other mechanism, we're stuck with these
|
||||
relatively coarse authorities.
|
||||
|
||||
If we want to limit this sort of authority, then we need to introduce a new
|
||||
method. The client begins by generating a new DSA keypair. Then it signs a
|
||||
message that declares the new pubkey to be valid for a specific subset of
|
||||
storage operations (such as "renew-lease SI=123 SSID=*"). Then it delivers
|
||||
the new privkey, the declaration message, and the membership card to the
|
||||
Renewer. The renewer uses the new privkey to sign its own one-per-SSID
|
||||
request message for each server, then sends the (signed request, declaration,
|
||||
membership card) triple to the server. The server needs to perform three
|
||||
verification checks per message: first the membership card, then the
|
||||
declaration message, then the actual request message.
|
||||
|
||||
== Other Enhancements ==
|
||||
|
||||
If a given authority is likely to be used multiple times, the same
|
||||
give-me-a-FURL trick can be used to cut down on the number of public key
|
||||
operations that must be performed. This is trickier with the per-SI messages.
|
||||
|
||||
When storing the manifest, things like the membership card should be
|
||||
amortized across a set of common entries. An isolated renew-cap needs to
|
||||
contain the verifycap, the signed renewal request, and the membership card.
|
||||
But a manifest with a thousand entries should only include one copy of the
|
||||
membership card.
|
||||
|
||||
It might be sensible to define a signed renewal request that grants authority
|
||||
for a set of storage indicies, so that the signature can be shared among
|
||||
several entries (to save space and perhaps processing time). The request
|
||||
could include a Bloom filter of authorized SI values: when the request is
|
||||
actually sent to the server, the renewer would add a list of actual SI values
|
||||
to renew, and the server would accept all that are contained in the filter.
|
||||
|
||||
== Revocation ==
|
||||
|
||||
The lifetime of the storage authority included in the manifest's renew-caps
|
||||
or repair-caps will determine the lifetime of those caps. In particular, if
|
||||
we implement account revocation by using time-limited membership cards
|
||||
(requiring the client to get a new card once a month), then the repair-caps
|
||||
won't work for more than a month, which kind of defeats the purpose.
|
||||
|
||||
A related issue is the FURL-shortcut: the MAC'ed message needs to include a
|
||||
validity period of some sort, and if the client tries to use a old FURL they
|
||||
should get an error message that will prompt them to try and acquire a newer
|
||||
one.
|
||||
|
||||
------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
The client can produce a repair-cap manifest for a specific Repairer's
|
||||
pubkey, so it can produce a signed message that includes the pubkey (instead
|
||||
of needing to generate a new privkey just for this purpose). The result is
|
||||
not a capability, since it can only be used by the holder of the
|
||||
corresponding privkey.
|
||||
|
||||
So the generic form of the storage operation message is the request (which
|
||||
has all the argument values filled in), followed by a chain of
|
||||
authorizations. The first authorization must be signed by the Account
|
||||
Server's key. Each authorization must be signed by the key mentioned in the
|
||||
previous one. Each one adds a new limitation on the power of the following
|
||||
ones. The actual request is bounded by all the limitations of the chain.
|
||||
|
||||
The membership card is an authorization that simply limits the account number
|
||||
that can be used: "op=* SI=* SSID=* account=4 signed-by=CLIENT-PUBKEY".
|
||||
|
||||
So a repair manifest created for a Repairer with pubkey ABCD could consist of
|
||||
a list of verifycaps plus a single authorization (using a Bloom filter to
|
||||
identify the SIs that were allowed):
|
||||
|
||||
SIGN("allocate SI=[bloom] SSID=* signed-by=ABCD")
|
||||
|
||||
If/when the Repairer needed to allocate a share, it would use its own privkey
|
||||
to sign an additional message and send the whole list to the SS:
|
||||
|
||||
request=allocate SI=1234 SSID=EEFS account=4 shnum=2
|
||||
SIGN("allocate SI=1234 SSID=EEFS", ABCD)
|
||||
SIGN("allocate SI=[bloom] SSID=* signed-by=ABCD", clientkey)
|
||||
membership: SIGN("op=* SI=* SSID=* account=4 signed-by=clientkey", ASkey)
|
||||
[implicit]: ASkey
|
||||
|
||||
----------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Things would be a lot simpler if the Repairer (actually the Re-Leaser) had
|
||||
everybody's account authority.
|
||||
|
||||
One simplifying approach: the Repairer/Re-Leaser has its own account, and the
|
||||
shares it creates are leased under that account number. The R/R keeps track
|
||||
of which leases it has created for whom. When the client eventually comes
|
||||
back online, it is told to perform a re-leasing run, and after that occurs
|
||||
the R/R can cancel its own temporary leases.
|
||||
|
||||
This would effectively transfer storage quota from the original client to the
|
||||
R/R over time (as shares are regenerated by the R/R while the client remains
|
||||
offline). If the R/R is centrally managed, the quota mechanism can sum the
|
||||
R/R's numbers with the SS's numbers when determining how much storage is
|
||||
consumed by any given account. Not quite as clean as storing the exact
|
||||
information in the SS's lease tables directly, but:
|
||||
|
||||
* the R/R no longer needs any special account authority (it merely needs an
|
||||
accurate account number, which can be supplied by giving the client a
|
||||
specific facet that is bound to that account number)
|
||||
* the verify-cap manifest is sufficient to perform repair
|
||||
* no extra DSA keys are necessary
|
||||
* account authority could be implemented with either DSA keys or personal SS
|
||||
facets: i.e. we don't need the delegability aspects of DSA keys for use by
|
||||
the repair mechanism (we might still want them to simplify introduction).
|
||||
|
||||
I *think* this would eliminate all that complexity of chained authorization
|
||||
messages.
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user