On 04/09/2023 15:41, Jonathan S. Fisher wrote:
Mark thank you again for your leadership and setting expectations. I'm going to commit to working on this with anyone else that wants to help with the goal of a patch by year end. I want to nail the patch with minimal rework that meets Tomcat project quality standards. To that end, I'll attempt to summarize what you expect here and if you could comment and correct my understanding that would be appreciated.It sounds like you're satisfied with the ubiquity of the Proxy protocol and that it has an RFC We'll target just implementing the latest version of the Proxy protocol We'll implement a "TrustedProxies" feature similar to what the Remote IP Valve does We'll implement a, or modify the RemoteIp, valve to be able to set the remote IP from Proxy protocol headers We'll follow the RFC spec and reject any request that does a proper Proxy protocol header I'm particularly interested in the Proxy protocol over Unix Domain Sockets, so expect to see a lot of the work focused on this, but accepting Proxy Protocol over TCP looks to be quite important from the comments on this email chain If I may ask two things: Can you summarize your desired implementation? What point in the stack should we target to implement this?
See my response earlier in this thread that suggested it sits alongside SNI processing. I still think that makes sense. If during implementation you reach a different conclusion then make the case for the alternative approach on list.
One thing I'm not familiar with on Tomcat is the testing expectations. If you can point to a set of unit tests and a set of integration tests and say "Do it like this"
Something like (only a guide) https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/main/test/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/TestTLSClientHelloExtractor.javato test the implementation directly and probably something based on SimpleHttpClient see
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/main/test/org/apache/coyote/http11/TestHttp11Processor.javafor various examples. The main thing is I suspect you'll need control of the individual bytes and SimpleHttpClient provides a reasonably simple basis for that.
What we often do when we want to test things like setting remote IP addresses etc. is echo the value in the response body and then check that value in the client.
Anything else on the original patch you liked/didn't like? ( https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57830)
It helps if you enable Checkstyle for your local build. It helps keep things in roughly the same coding style (we are slowly tightening up on that). Ideally, use the clean-up and formatting configurations we have for Eclipse in res/ide-support/eclipse .
This is sufficiently complex that I am expecting several iterations to be required. if it is simpler for you to manage with a PR then that is fine and probably easier to work with than a patch in Bugzilla.
Mark
Thank you, On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 3:13 PM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:On 28/08/2023 18:44, Amit Pande wrote:Oh, sure. So, what would be the best way to get some conclusion on thisthread? Provide a patch for review based on the feedback provided here and in the BZ issue.https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57830 The state of theticket isn't updated for long. Perhaps add comments/ask the folks on user list to vote? That is more likely to irritate folks rather than encourage them to help you progress your patch. MarkThanks, Amit -----Original Message----- From: Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 11:20 AM To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org> Subject: Re: [External] Re: Supporting Proxy Protocol in Tomcat CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do notclick links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe this is a phishing email, use the Report to Cybersecurity icon in Outlook.28 Aug 2023 17:11:20 Amit Pande <amit.pa...@veritas.com.INVALID>:Mark, Just checking - Did this issue get discussed in any of the core members' meeting?There are no such meetings. Discussion happens on the mailing lists. MarkThanks, 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. MarkThanks, 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. -chrisThis 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-client s - ip-address&data=05%7C01%7CAmit.Pande%40veritas.com%7C51dbcc5eeac14 f a b5aa708db8ee67aae%7Cfc8e13c0422c4c55b3eaca318e6cac32%7C0%7C0%7C638 2 6 0892775883704%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoi V 2 luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RWHWpIL a 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 ConnectorsI 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 processingSNI 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://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 Fhttpd.apache.org%2Fdocs%2F2.4%2Fmod%2Fmod_remoteip.html&data=05%7C01%7CAmit.Pande% 40veritas.com%7Cf200a998e3514a7fdba008dba7e2d4a5%7Cfc8e13c0422c4c55b3eaca318e6cac32%7C0%7C0%7C638288364940284915%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1and8JWbfUqI%2F1vR1ZZPZEi%2FSWVNlqUpBb8bg668TcA%3D&reserved=0 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 protocolsupport?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 inhttps://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbz.apache.org%2Fbugzilla%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D57830&data=05%7C01%7CAmit.Pande%40veritas.com%7Cf200a998e3514a7fdba008dba7e2d4a5%7Cfc8e13c0422c4c55b3eaca318e6cac32%7C0%7C0%7C638288364940284915%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jW2B%2BbjpdRSh3NW7%2BhgvcekqSDcXes7asGUabXbkjvU%3D&reserved=0 ?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%7Ca85e610757b348137b4008db8c6d8156%7Cfc8e13c0422c4c55b3eaca318e6c a c 32%7C0 %7C0%7C638258174209955308%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4w L 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 thishttps://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 F %25 2Fbz.a%2F&data=05%7C01%7CAmit.Pande%40veritas.com%7C51dbcc5eea c 1 4fab5aa708db8ee67aae%7Cfc8e13c0422c4c55b3eaca318e6cac32%7C0%7C 0 % 7C638260892775883704%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwM D A iLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7 C & sdata=PqTzx9i99HLy8g0qX0WpmWsW3sYDqkW0i522q74RApY%3D&reserved= 0 pache.org%2Fbugzilla%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D57830&data=05%7C01%7CAmit.Pande% 40veritas.com%7Ca85e610757b348137b4008db8c6d8156%7Cfc8e13c0422c4c5 5 b 3eaca318e6cac32%7C0%7C0%7C638258174209955308%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb 3 d 8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3 D % 7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mH7TRJny1YUOsG%2BeFXno4xdvsLAjz%2BRkQgCnLfeh X 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 notneed 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 enhancementrequest.https://bz/. a%2F&data=05%7C01%7CAmit.Pande%40veritas.com%7C07ebe3c927ed4 b 7 87206 08 db519ccce8%7Cfc8e13c0422c4c55b3eaca318e6cac32%7C0%7C0%7C6381 9 3 50613 56 24269%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2 l u MzIiL CJ BTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3UFyiGJ9Zg t L qUzY9 JM CK2MfwKN3OAOKdr6JmTUGkPw%3D&reserved=0 pache.org%2Fbugzilla%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D57830&data=05%7C01%7CAmit.P ande%40veritas.com%7Cab789327b86845e8ad7208db50046f55%7Cfc8e 1 3 c0422 c4 c 55b3eaca318e6cac32%7C0%7C0%7C638191752206669206%7CUnknown%7C T W FpbGZ sb 3 d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC I 6 Mn0%3 D% 7 C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6TXyKzlyjY3AIi6zQMFn2j9BhtwYo6Jkrd1V3nO l 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'tlook 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 proxyingbytes 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
