[openstack-dev] [nova][keystone] Message Queue Security
simo at redhat.com
Thu Apr 25 21:01:40 UTC 2013
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 15:27 -0400, Eric Windisch wrote:
> > The main reason was to avoid having to store many records on the
> > receiving side. Using a monotonic timestamp you just need to keep around
> > the last received one and if a message with an equal or older timstamp
> > comes around you simply discard it.
> > Is it possible to receive 2 valid messages from the same source in the
> > wrong order through the massage queue ?
> Message are not guaranteed to be in order. First, this is not expected
> of the RPC abstraction, and secondly, it isn't true of the
> implementations we have. I can't speak for Rabbit/Qpid, but I know
> that ZeroMQ will certainly deliver messages out of order as they're
> sent over separate TCP connections. I suspect the same is probably
> true of Rabbit/Qpid, at least if you happen to have multiple processes
> per host (i.e. two processes of 'nova-scheduler').
Ok, then I will think again about it.
> > If that is possible I guess using a nonce will be necessary, but I dread
> > having to keep a dictionary of received packets, search through it every
> > single time you receive a message, scrub it regularly to prune old
> > entries and so on.
> Dictionary key lookups are fast. Memory is a bigger concern. You only need to keep signatures, not message contents. There are data structures and patterns that are appropriate for this task that won't require active scrubbing.
> > Keep in mind this database would have to be on shared if you really run
> > multiple processes with the same name on the same host as they all have
> > to share the replay database, so you need to use shared memory or IPC
> > and some sort and locking ... which tends to slow done processing and it
> > is usually a blocking operation.
> At least that will be per-host and not per-service.
The thing is, in order to use a nonce you need to do interprocess
locking and keep a table of all the numbers previously used (or use a
counter). Unless by nonce, you really mean a 'random' number.
1. A nonce cannot ever repeat. To guarantee this you have to have a
single source for this number (back to monotonic timestamp and
serialization, just different output).
2. A random number can repeat but it is very unlikely that will happen
if you have a good random generator that has uniform distribution.
I think you mean 2, because the chance we get out of the hat 2 identical
numbers chosen at random within the same hundredth of a second on the
same machine if the numbers are big enough, say 2^64, are very, very
low, so we might decide to ignore that it may happen.
However, how bad is it is it *does* happen ?
If we really need a *nonce* then we should use a counter that is updated
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
More information about the OpenStack-dev