Mark, Just checking - Did this issue get discussed in any of the core members' meeting?
Thanks, Amit -----Original Message----- From: Amit Pande Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 9:29 AM To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org> Subject: RE: [External] Re: Supporting Proxy Protocol in Tomcat Yes, understood. Thank you for clarifying. Even I was referring to initial consensus without any timeline or approach conclusion. Thanks, Amit -----Original Message----- From: Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 2:48 PM To: users@tomcat.apache.org Subject: Re: [External] Re: Supporting Proxy Protocol in Tomcat On 28/07/2023 19:21, Amit Pande wrote: > Thank you all for the valuable discussion on this topic. > > Is it okay to say that we're agreeing to adding proxy protocol support in > Tomcat? I think that is a little too strong. At this point there is a proposed approach and no one is objecting but until there is an actual patch to discuss... Keep in mind that any committer can veto a change. My sense is that it should be possible to implement this feature while addressing any concerns that may be raised but it is not guaranteed. Mark > > Thanks, > Amit > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 4:13 PM > To: users@tomcat.apache.org > Subject: Re: [External] Re: Supporting Proxy Protocol in Tomcat > > All, > > On 7/27/23 12:39, Mark Thomas wrote: >> On 27/07/2023 16:27, Jonathan S. Fisher wrote: >>> On the topic of security, may we consider a trustedProxies setting? >> >> Seems reasonable. > > We should probably look at what httpd did for all of this. > > -chris > >>> This >>> would be an analog to the internalProxies setting on RemoteIpValve. >>> It would need to be able to function with APR/NIO listening in a >>> Unix Domain Socket. >>> >>> I'm not sure if this is super useful, but the goal would be an added >>> layer of security to prevent Proxy Protocol header injection. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 3:47 AM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 26/07/2023 21:53, Christopher Schultz wrote: >>>>> Mark, >>>>> >>>>> On 7/26/23 13:58, Mark Thomas wrote: >>>>>> I'm not a huge fan of this feature in general. I prefer >>>>>> supporting features backed by specifications rather than vendor specific >>>>>> hacks. >>>>> >>>>> I think the PROXY protocol is fairly standard, even if it's not >>>>> backed by an RFC. It's published by haproxy, but supported by >>>>> nginx, >>>>> (obviously) haproxy, AWS, httpd[1], and a whole bunch of others ( >>>> https://ww/ >>>> w.haproxy.com%2Fblog%2Fuse-the-proxy-protocol-to-preserve-a-clients >>>> - >>>> ip-address&data=05%7C01%7CAmit.Pande%40veritas.com%7C51dbcc5eeac14f >>>> a >>>> b5aa708db8ee67aae%7Cfc8e13c0422c4c55b3eaca318e6cac32%7C0%7C0%7C6382 >>>> 6 >>>> 0892775883704%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV >>>> 2 >>>> luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RWHWpILa >>>> 0 >>>> rLRM0xPgFAeXdk0y1l2ob%2BNcQHZP55fQDg%3D&reserved=0 >>>> ). >>>> >>>> ACK. That reduces my concerns somewhat. >>>> >>>>> Well, the reality is that people want to use this in the real >>>>> world and this is essentially the only way to do it, barring >>>>> coming up with a whole new protocol for the purpose (I'm looking at /you/ >>>>> AJP!). >>>> >>>> Indeed. >>>> >>>>> So why not use /the/ protocol that (a) exists and (b) is supported >>>>> by every single product that currently supports this type of thing? >>>>> >>>>>> My support for any patch is going to depend on the specifics of >>>>>> the patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition to the comments in the BZ >>>>>> - exposing the data as a request attribute is inconsistent with >>>>>> other >>>>>> mechanisms that solve the same problem (e.g. see >>>>>> RemoteIpFilter) >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> The whole point of PROXY is to kind of mix-together the >>>>> capabilities of both the RemoteIPFilter/Valve (which uses HTTP >>>>> headers for >>>>> source-information) and the top-level idea of a Connector >>>>> (something that binds to a socket and pushes bytes around). >>>>> >>>>> The confusing thing here is that those two jobs are performed at >>>>> relatively different levels in Tomcat at the moment, as I >>>>> understand things. >>>> >>>> Yes and no. RemoteIP[Filter|Valve] insert/modify the data at a >>>> higher level because that is where they sit but the data originates >>>> from the SocketWrapper. >>>> >>>>> If some kind of UberConnector could be built which essentially >>>>> does something like the following, it would be ideal: >>>>> >>>>> public void accept(Socket s) { >>>>> ProxyHeader proxyHeader = readProxyHeader(s); >>>>> >>>>> Connector realConnector = getRealConnector(); >>>>> >>>>> realConnector.setRemoteIP(proxyHeader.getRemoteIP()); >>>>> realConnector.setRemotePort(proxyHeader.getRemotePort()); >>>>> >>>>> realConnector.takeItAway(s); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure there are other pieces of information that would be good >>>>> to pass-through, but the identity of the remote client is the most >>>>> interesting one. >>>> >>>> Yes, that is the general idea. Just a couple of minor tweaks to use >>>> the SocketWrapper rather than the Connector and to do it in a >>>> slightly different place. The Acceptor is too early as we want to >>>> do as little as possible on the Acceptor thread. >>>> >>>>>> - needs to be implemented for all Connectors >>>>> >>>>> I hope not. The connectors should be able to just have a thin >>>>> layer in front of them "sipping" the header off the beginning of the >>>>> connection. >>>>> I am *way* out of my depth here when it comes to Tomcat internals >>>>> and so I don't want to appear to be telling you (Mark) "how it >>>>> works/should work", but conceptually it "seems easy". That may not >>>>> translate into "easy implementation" or it may mean "tons of >>>>> refactoring that we wouldn't need if we didn't care that much." >>>> >>>> My point was that the provided patch only implements this for NIO. >>>> It needs to implement it for NIO2 as well. APR/Native looks to be a >>>> lot more difficult to implement and I'd be happy not implementing >>>> it for APR/Native. >>>> >>>>>> - I'd expect it to look more like the SNI processing >>>>> >>>>> SNI processing is very connector-dependent, of course, because >>>>> it's HTTPS-only. PROXY should allow HTTP, HTTPS, AJP, SFTP, JDBC, >>>>> anything. >>>>> So if it can be implemented as something that can just "sit in >>>>> front of" >>>>> *any* connector now or in the future of Tomcat, that would be >>>>> ideal. It could definitely be implemented as an "optional feature" >>>>> on a Connector-by-Connector basis, but my sense is that it can be >>>>> done separately and globally. >>>> >>>> Ah. You are thinking Connector as in protocol (HTTP, AJP, etc) >>>> whereas I am thinking in terms of implementation (NIO, NIO2, etc). >>>> >>>> SNI is handled independently of implementation and I think PROXY >>>> should be handled the same way. They also sit at almost the same >>>> point in the processing (PROXY needs to be first). PROXY parsing >>>> could be implemented within the existing handshake() method but I >>>> think it would be much cleaner in a separate method. >>>> >>>> Without looking at it too closely I think the implementation would >>>> look something like: >>>> >>>> - a new method on SocketWrapperBase that >>>> - checks if PROXY is enabled >>>> - returns immediately if PROXY is not enabled or has already >>>> been parsed >>>> - uses a new utility class (or classes) to parse the header >>>> (reading via the read() methods on SocketWrapperBase) >>>> - sets the cached values for remoteAddr, remoteHost, >>>> remotePort etc >>>> - The SocketProcessor.doRun() implementations add a call to this new >>>> method just before the TLS handshake >>>> >>>> If we want to support the TLS information then a little additional >>>> refactoring will be required (probably to cache the result of >>>> SocketWrapperBase.getSslSupport) so the new utility classes can >>>> insert a PROXY specific SSLSupport implementation. >>>> >>>>> Again, I'm speaking from a position of profound ignorance, here. >>>>> Please don't hear me say "oh, this is easy, Mark... just go do it!" >>>>> :) >>>> >>>> :) >>>> >>>> Actually with the patch that has already been provided and the >>>> suggested implementation outline above I don't think there is too much >>>> work to do. >>>> >>>>>> Generally, I don't think implementing this is going to be >>>>>> possible as some sort of plug-in. >>>>> >>>>> +1 Unless the plug-in is "a whole new set of protocol/endpoint/etc. >>>>> handlers" which is a rather serious commitment. >>>> >>>> On reflection, with the approach above we probably could implement >>>> this via a new plug-in framework but I am not sure it is worth the >>>> effort at this point. Something to keep in mind if we have more >>>> things wanting to integrate at this point in the processing chain. >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>>> >>>>> -chris >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_remoteip.html search for >>>>> "haproxy" >>>>> >>>>>> On 26/07/2023 17:44, Amit Pande wrote: >>>>>>> Missed to ask this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking the patch, it involves modifying Tomcat code. >>>>>>> Was wondering if it would be possible to refactor this patch >>>>>>> and/or allow Tomcat core code to extend and plug-in the proxy >>>>>>> protocol >>>> support? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Amit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Amit Pande >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 11:43 AM >>>>>>> To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org> >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [External] Re: Supporting Proxy Protocol in Tomcat >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chris, Mark, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any thoughts on this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mark, if we clean up the patch and re-submit, do you will have >>>>>>> any concerns (specially security wise)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Amit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Jonathan S. Fisher <exabr...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 12:41 PM >>>>>>> To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [External] Re: Supporting Proxy Protocol in Tomcat >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just a side note, because we're also very interested in this patch! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Awhile back, I was successfully able to apply this patch and >>>>>>> terminate TCP/TLS using HaProxy. We then had Tomcat listen on a >>>>>>> unix domain socket and the Proxy protocol provided *most *of the >>>>>>> relevant/required information to tomcat. I believe we had to add >>>>>>> a Valve to tomcat to set the Remote IP however as the patch >>>>>>> didn't handle that case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can find my notes from that experiment, but I do remember >>>>>>> getting a significant boost in throughput and decrease in latency. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 for this patch and willing to help out! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 11:22 AM Amit Pande >>>>>>> <amit.pa...@veritas.com.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you, Chris, again for inputs. >>>>>>>> And sorry to circle back on this, late. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One related question is - does it make sense to use the patch >>>>>>>> attached in >>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57830 ? >>>>>>>> And potentially, get it integrated into Tomcat versions? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are concerns from Mark about using the patch in its >>>>>>>> current state, but I see last comment (#24) on the issue and >>>>>>>> looks like there are some more points to be concluded. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Amit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 4:21 PM >>>>>>>> To: users@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [External] Re: Supporting Proxy Protocol in Tomcat >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Amit, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/10/23 12:59, Amit Pande wrote: >>>>>>>>> Yes, we intended to have Tomcat run behind a (transparent) TCP >>>>>>>>> proxy e.g. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www/. >>>>>>>> envoyproxy.io >>>> %2Fdocs%2Fenvoy%2Flatest%2Fintro%2Farch_overview%2Fother_ >>>>>>>> features%2Fip_transparency&data=05%7C01%7CAmit.Pande%40veritas. >>>>>>>> c >>>>>>>> om >>>> %7Ca >>>>>>>> 85e610757b348137b4008db8c6d8156%7Cfc8e13c0422c4c55b3eaca318e6ca >>>>>>>> c >>>>>>>> 32%7C0 >>>>>>>> %7C0%7C638258174209955308%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wL >>>>>>>> j >>>>>>>> AwMDAi >>>>>>>> LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C& >>>>>>>> s >>>>>>>> data=W >>>>>>>> NEV4UQ5q4Nl8SEFHMz7C%2Fj3Qr7pCHpfyvQLeBn56uQ%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>>> which supports the proxy protocol. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since there is not much action on this >>>>>>>> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F >>>>>>>> %25 >>>>>>>> 2Fbz.a%2F&data=05%7C01%7CAmit.Pande%40veritas.com%7C51dbcc5eeac >>>>>>>> 1 >>>>>>>> 4fab5aa708db8ee67aae%7Cfc8e13c0422c4c55b3eaca318e6cac32%7C0%7C0 >>>>>>>> % >>>>>>>> 7C638260892775883704%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMD >>>>>>>> A >>>>>>>> iLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C >>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>> sdata=PqTzx9i99HLy8g0qX0WpmWsW3sYDqkW0i522q74RApY%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>>> pache.org >>>> %2Fbugzilla%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D57830&data=05%7C01%7CAmit.Pande% >>>> 40veritas.com%7Ca85e610757b348137b4008db8c6d8156%7Cfc8e13c0422c4c55 >>>> b >>>> 3eaca318e6cac32%7C0%7C0%7C638258174209955308%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 >>>> d >>>> 8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D >>>> % >>>> 7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mH7TRJny1YUOsG%2BeFXno4xdvsLAjz%2BRkQgCnLfehX >>>> v Q%3D&reserved=0, does it imply that most of the times Tomcat is >>>> running behind HTTP proxies and not TCP proxies? >>>>>>>>> Or does it mean that, Tomcat or applications running in Tomcat >>>>>>>>> does not >>>>>>>> need the remote client address information? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can't speak for anybody else, but I use Apache httpd as my >>>>>>>> reverse-proxy and I do terminate TLS. I also use it for >>>>>>>> load-balancing/fail-over, caching, some authorization, etc. I >>>>>>>> wouldn't be able to use a TCP load-balancer because I hide >>>>>>>> multiple services behind my reverse-proxy which run in >>>>>>>> different places. It's not just s dumb pass-through. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hope that helps, >>>>>>>> -chris >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:40 PM >>>>>>>>> To: users@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>>>>> Subject: [External] Re: Supporting Proxy Protocol in Tomcat >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Amit, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/4/23 16:07, Amit Pande wrote: >>>>>>>>>> We have a similar requirement as mentioned in the below >>>>>>>>>> enhancement >>>>>>>> request. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://bz/. >>>>>>>>>> a%2F&data=05%7C01%7CAmit.Pande%40veritas.com%7C07ebe3c927ed4b >>>>>>>>>> 7 >>>>>>>>>> 87206 >>>>>>>>>> 08 >>>>>>>>>> db519ccce8%7Cfc8e13c0422c4c55b3eaca318e6cac32%7C0%7C0%7C63819 >>>>>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>>>>> 50613 >>>>>>>>>> 56 >>>>>>>>>> 24269%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2l >>>>>>>>>> u >>>>>>>>>> MzIiL >>>>>>>>>> CJ >>>>>>>>>> BTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3UFyiGJ9Zgt >>>>>>>>>> L >>>>>>>>>> qUzY9 >>>>>>>>>> JM >>>>>>>>>> CK2MfwKN3OAOKdr6JmTUGkPw%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>>>>> pache.org >>>> %2Fbugzilla%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D57830&data=05%7C01%7CAmit. >>>>>>>>>> P >>>>>>>>>> ande%40veritas.com%7Cab789327b86845e8ad7208db50046f55%7Cfc8e1 >>>>>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>>>>> c0422 >>>>>>>>>> c4 >>>>>>>>>> c >>>>>>>>>> 55b3eaca318e6cac32%7C0%7C0%7C638191752206669206%7CUnknown%7CT >>>>>>>>>> W >>>>>>>>>> FpbGZ >>>>>>>>>> sb >>>>>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>>>>> d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI >>>>>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>>>>> Mn0%3 >>>>>>>>>> D% >>>>>>>>>> 7 >>>>>>>>>> C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6TXyKzlyjY3AIi6zQMFn2j9BhtwYo6Jkrd1V3nOl >>>>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>>>> mY%3D >>>>>>>>>> &r >>>>>>>>>> e >>>>>>>>>> served=0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is there any plan to add this support in Tomcat in future >>>>>>>>>> releases? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing at the moment that I know of. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I thought that markt had looked at this a while back and said >>>>>>>>> it didn't >>>>>>>> look too difficult. It does require Tomcat to handle the stream >>>>>>>> directly and not just rely on Java's SSLServerSocket. I thought >>>>>>>> that had been done at some point, but it may not have. Handling >>>>>>>> the stream directly may have some other advantages as well, >>>>>>>> though it definitely makes the code more complicated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also, since this was requested long time back and there is no >>>>>>>>>> update, are there any other alternatives to pass the client >>>>>>>>>> information from load balancer to Tomcat in situations where >>>>>>>>>> there is no SSL termination at load balancer? >>>>>>>>> You mean like a network load balancer where the lb is just >>>>>>>>> proxying >>>>>>>> bytes and not looking at the data at all? The PROXY protocol >>>>>>>> really is the best way to do that, honestly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -chris >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> ----- To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>>>>> users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> ----- To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>>>>> users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Jonathan | exabr...@gmail.com >>>>>>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see >>>>>>> it as half full. >>>>>>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it >>>>>>> needs to be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> - >>>>>> --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> - >>>>> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
