Issue #2700: Adds support for X509 and JWT specific SVID TTLs

[dennisgove]

Fixes #2700
Depends on spiffe/spire-api-sdk#29

This change adds support for X509 and JWT specific SVID TTLs in each of the following places

• Default values in spire-server configuration. Similar to the existing TTL value, if provided then it must be >= 0. A value of 0 is considered 'unset', meaning there is no default.
• Entry records in the database and API calls

During Entry creation and update

• If the API call contains a non-zero X509SvidTtl value then that will be stored, else the config default x509SvidTtl value is used
• If the API call contains a non-zero JWTSvidTtl value then that will stored, else the config default jwtSvidTtl value is used

During X509-SVID creation

• If the API call contains a non-zero TTL value then that is used, else
• If the stored record contains a non-zero X509SvidTtl value then that will be used, else
• If the stored record contains a non-zero TTL value then that will be used,
• The hard-coded default X509SvidTTL value will be used

During JWT-SVID creation

• If the API call contains a non-zero TTL value then that is used, else
• If the stored record contains a non-zero JWTSvidTtl value then that will be used, else
• If the stored record contains a non-zero TTL value then that will be used,
• The hard-coded default JWTSvidTTL value will be used

All of Ttl, X509SvidTtl, and JwtSvidTtl will be considered during the following cases

• All must be valid with-respect-to the configured CA TTL - they are all part of the min/max validation checks
• Entry sorting now includes each of Ttl, X509SvidTtl, and JwtSvidTtl

Signed-off-by: Dennis Gove [email protected]

Pull Request check list

• Commit conforms to CONTRIBUTING.md?
• Proper tests/regressions included?
• Documentation updated?

[dennisgove]

Note: failed compilation should be expected until spiffe/spire-api-sdk#29 is merged and the go.sum references the new version.

[MarcosDY]

Thanks for this!!! and great work

[dennisgove]

Thank you, @MarcosDY for your feedback. Every comment with a 👍 has been corrected. The only outstanding issue is the upgrade and downgrade question, for which I've posted my thoughts.

[azdagron]

Hey, @dennisgove! We talked about this yesterday in our maintainer sync. We talked about a few things and are letting things marinate a bit before making a decision. We should be able to get back to you with direction early next week.

[azdagron]

Sorry it took so longer to get back here. I think we are good with the proposal you outlined for upgrade downgrade.

Additionally, as far as the API layer is concerned, we concluded that we think the compat story is a little easier if, instead of adding two new fields, we rename the existing ttl field to x509_svid_ttl and only introduce the new jwt_svid_ttl field. This allows for applications, like the spire-controller-manager, to continue working with SPIRE without change. It also supports the behavior in your proposal wherein ttl is more or less reflected under x509_svid_ttl and vice-versa.

How does that sound?

[dennisgove]

rename the existing ttl field to x509_svid_ttl

I have two concerns with this approach. Though please let me know if I'm misunderstanding the intent here.

First, we've already added two new fields in the database for this feature. #3174 added columns x509_svid_ttl and jwt_svid_ttl while keeping column ttl, and was released as part of 1.3.2. That said, this isn't a blocker as both the ttl and x509_svid_ttl columns can be updated using the same API field.

Second, and I think more importantly, is that wouldn't a rename of the API field from ttl to x509SvidTtl be a breaking change for anything that's using the ttl field? CLI calls with -ttl won't work anymore. API calls with requests containing a ttl field would no longer work. Clients expecting a ttl field in a response will break. The introduction of the x509_svid_ttl field was in an effort to avoid that breaking change right away. In effect, have a few versions which support both ttl and x509_svid_ttl so that clients and libraries can migrate to x509_svid_ttl and only after a reasonable period of time would we remove ttl.

That said, I could see value in the following approach, though there are still issues with it.

1. All internal code renames the ttl field to x509_svid_ttl and there will only be x509_svid_ttl and jwt_svid_ttl fields in all internal types. One problem here is that the database model will still have 3 fields, for now.
2. All external API and CLI references for ttl will support the alias x509_svid_ttl. They mean the same thing and only one can be set. If a client is sending an API request with ttl then they cannot include x509_svid_ttl, and vice-versa. One problem here is, what field name is returned from the API? We still have the breaking change problem if a client expects the field to be called ttl and it's called x509_svid_ttl.

[azdagron]

Second, and I think more importantly, is that wouldn't a rename of the API field from ttl to x509SvidTtl be a breaking change for anything that's using the ttl field?

This would only be a breaking change at compile time, and only after the software updates their dependency on the SDK. Already built software would continue to function just fine, since the protobuf field number would remain the same, i.e., wire compatibility would not break.

Consider the inverse. If we move forward then with it as-is, then software, at some point, needs to cut over to using the new x509_svid_ttl field. The software would no longer work with old versions of SPIRE.
SPIRE itself would also, at some point, presumably want to remove the ttl field. This means that software that has not updated to use x509_svid_ttl would stop functioning with new versions of SPIRE.

[dennisgove]

the protobuf field number would remain the same, i.e., wire compatibility would not break.

That is something I forgot about - thanks for clearing that up. This plan sounds good to me. I'll get started on those changes. For my own planning purposes, when are we intending to cut 1.5, so I can be sure to get these in with plenty of time?

[azdagron]

Yikes! Milestone wasn't updated. I just updated it with our tentative release date of Nov 2nd. We try and release every four weeks. We usually pick our commit about a week before the release, so that would give you until Oct 26th. We rarely have a hard release deadline and therefore try and be flexible, so if things drag out a little longer, that is ok.

[azdagron]

Thanks for picking up this work by the way. Really appreciate the meaty contribution.

[azdagron]

Hey @dennisgove! Just wanted to follow up and see how things were going here. Do you still feel comfortable hitting the commit pick date for the next release? No pressure. Let us know if you need anything.

[dennisgove]

Hi @azdagron. I do still feel comfortable hitting the OCtober 26th date. I had a little issue when I swapped my laptop to an M1 but have gotten that resolved.

[dennisgove]

@azdagron I believe I've made all the necessary changes, including in the tests. But I'm not 100% that I haven't missed something.

[azdagron]

Looks like we missed updating go.mod with the latest pseudo-version. CI/CD is also not passing.

[dennisgove]

Looks like we missed updating go.mod with the latest pseudo-version. CI/CD is also not passing.

@azdagron, is this something I should be changing? If so, what should I change?

[azdagron]

is this something I should be changing?

Yeah, you need to update the spire-api-sdk dependency to pick up the rename change you did that was merged onto the next branch.

$ go get github.com/spiffe/spire-api-sdk@5895a027994460226988e32ac2ba7c963dfca4f7

[azdagron]

Thanks for the update @dennisgove. Most comments are naming and other minutiae. Also, from the failed CI/CD run, it looks like we missed updating some of the CLI tests that only run for windows.
While that is being fixed, I'll build this and give it a run through to sanity check things.

[dennisgove]

Thanks @azdagron. I plan to have those items pushed by tonight.

[azdagron]

Excellent, @dennisgove . I feel much better about this. I've left a nitpicky comment, but will start doing some manual testing on this to build confidence. I think we can likely merge this today. Thank you for the great work and significant contribution!

[azdagron]

I did some manual testing and I think we're good here. Once that final nit is fixed, I think we'll be ready to merge. I can push a commit if needed.

[dennisgove]

Thank you @azdagron and @MarcosDY for all your feedback and help with this change. I really appreciate it!