Review Board 1.7.22


Allow SSL and non-SSL connections on the same port

Review Request #2206 - Created Oct. 5, 2011 and submitted

Gordon Sim
QPID-3514
Reviewers
astitcher, chug, mick, tross
qpid
Allow SSL and non-SSL connections on the same port. Patch contributed by Zane Bitter for use by the Matahari Project.
make check passes; tested with and without the multiplexing; tested client authentication; tested SASL EXTERNAL (requires reverting a recent change unrelated to this, see QPID-3522)
Review request changed
Updated (Oct. 5, 2011, 1:36 p.m.)
Posted (Oct. 5, 2011, 3:39 p.m.)
** We can't accept this as it stands as it will break IPv6 support if turned on. **

On the whole I think it is moving in the correct direction, but it is only partly formed:

* This works in effect by adding in *another* transport type - the muxed SSL transport. We are trying to reduce and simplify the number of transports not increase them, this will make the code harder to maintain over all.

* It's not clear to me why we wouldn't want this always turned on if we have the capability. In other words what is the benefit of ever turning it off. When we can do this switch then we should have it on for all listening sockets, the only option should be to allow a port to only accept encrypted connections.

* This code is tactical, not strategic in that it works for this particular case, but as far as I can tell won't help in the upcoming amqp 1.0 case where we would need to switch to TLS processing sometime during the amqp protocol processing.

* The code that selects between encrypted and non encrypted code paths should be unified with the code that checks the protocol version, currently the accept code does this and blocks whilst reading some bytes from the connection. I really don't like this approach.

- Actually this code makes me wonder if we should change the architecture of the socket code to have an explicit piece of code which is run just after accepting a socket to select which bits of code get run next.
  1. Is IPv6 supported for SSL at present? If not, and if you view this as adding the (optional) ability to serve plain sockets on the SSL enabled port, then one could argue its not really a regression. We would need to add IPv6 support to SSL anyway and it would seem to be to be largely independent of this change. If however we do support IPv6 on SSL and this breaks it then I would certainly agree with you.
    
    While I think its fair to characterise this as tactical, I don't think it makes a strategic solution any harder. Though it adds an additional protocol factory it re-uses code very well (better indeed than what is there at present). It would certainly need modifications for AMQP 1.0, but compared to the rest of the work required there I don't think that is particularly significant, nor do I think it makes things any worse.
    
    The strategic changes around this part of the code are more fundamental. Until there is something concrete planned there I think it would be a real shame to bar adding useful new features, providing they don't aggravate the situation (and I would argue this patch does not).
    
    Your point around the blocking in the accept is a good one. It would be much nicer to avoid blocking if possible. Given the dearth of documentation in this area, would you be willing to flesh out your preferred approach in a bit more detail?
    
  2. I disagree in principle with the idea that adding more code when we really need to simplify the code doesn't make our job going forward any harder.
    
    The code in this area is just within my ability to comprehend, adding more just makes it harder for me. So while this is a reasonably neat tactical job I strongly suggest that including this code before simplifying what already there will make it harder to simplify, I know it will make it harder for me to simplify.
  3. As a note my plan for making SSL run over IPv6 does indeed feature some of the simplification I'm talking about, specifically I'm introducing a Socket interface implemented by both SSL and regular TCP sockets so that the higher level code can be reduced to a single implementation.
    
    This approach also allows for handing over a socket to the SSL code from the TCP code during the negotiation if required.
    
    So overall my approach to this would be opposite make the TCP code detect SSL connections and create the SSL wiring, rather than have a specific option to make the SSL code allow for regular TCP connections.