[wildfly-dev] HTTP/2 out of the box in Wildfly 10.1

Tue Jun 7 21:51:51 EDT 2016

I have created a PR for this here:
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/1596 (it will also require
some upstream changes).

Basically this just creates a new schema version, and add the '
generate-self-signed-certificate-host' attribute to the keystore.

I have not added a script to enable HTTPS over management as Jason
suggested, I am not 100% sure if that really belongs in core or as part of
the full distribution.

Stuart

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Jason Greene <jason.greene at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> So after reviewing this thread and discussing with a few folks, I’d like
>> to propose, for 10.1:
>>
>> #1b - Same as the previous #1, we don’t enable TLS for management by
>> default for now, but we additionally include an extra cli script to enable
>> TLS.
>>
>
> We would leave the cert generation bit in the security realm, but just
> don't enable the HTTPS interface. That way all that is required is for the
> user to add the https="managements-https" attribute.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>>
>> For 11 I think we should move to TLS by default, perhaps with a
>> configurable URL policy on redirects, and address the incongruence with
>> upgrade over app.
>>
>> I think its likely reasonable to redirect by default for 11, but we can
>> hash that out further. One nice thing I had forgotten about is that the JDK
>> will prompt for you to add unknown certs, and this all works with the
>> CLI[1]. So it’s really only non-interactive clients we have to worry about,
>> and that sounds like a reasonable burden for upgrade.
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> [disconnected /] connect
>> Unable to connect due to unrecognised server certificate
>> Subject    - CN=foo,OU=foo,L=Madison,ST=WI,C=US
>> Issuer     - CN=myServer, OU=test, L=Madison, ST=WI, C=US
>> Valid From - Tue Jun 07 15:22:06 CDT 2016
>> Valid To   - Thu Jun 07 15:22:06 CDT 2018
>> MD5 : cd:68:be:0b:e0:c0:1c:63:d5:2a:85:c8:d1:9d:e7:7d
>> SHA1 : ae:f8:35:fd:09:c9:b3:08:05:59:a6:40:5e:ac:6e:e8:ce:85:72:4b
>>
>> Accept certificate? [N]o, [T]emporarily, [P]ermenantly : t
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 6:24 AM, Jason T. Greene <jason.greene at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Long term I think we want management using TLS, but that can of course
>> come in phases. Assuming 2) is one of those phases to come (either now or
>> later), a following step is that the CLI, and really any remoting client,
>> should prefer TLS with a defaulted trust store location that points to the
>> keystore.
>>
>> With 2) if we have the default of the attribute that forces redirect be
>> true, and our default config be false, then someone that carries over their
>> old config would not have a potential security weakness. If they have a CLI
>> script that adds the https port, it will fail, hopefully sending a signal
>> to look. Although, the user might just assume that oh it's there, I don't
>> have to do anything.
>>
>> Another interesting thing about 2 is that IIRC we have conflicting
>> behavior between the app port which doesn't force upgrade and the
>> management port which does.
>>
>> So my preference is 2, because at some point we have to do it anyway, and
>> if we have TLS out of the box might as well use it.
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 10:48 PM, Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> So while implementing this I have noticed a potential problem that it
>> would be good to get some feedback on.
>>
>> If the management interface has SSL by default then the HTTP interface
>> will always redirect to the HTTPS interface. This effectively breaks the
>> management API, as clients such as the CLI, Arquillian etc will be
>> redirected to HTTPS, and then reject the self signed certificate (as they
>> should).
>>
>> I am not sure what to do about this, these are the options as I see them:
>>
>> 1) Don't enable SSL for the management interface (just for the Undertow
>> subsystem). The management interface can still use this auto-generation
>> capability, it just won't be enable by default (we could even leave the
>> cert in the security domain, but just not enable the https interface).
>>
>> 2) Disable automatic redirects for HTTP upgrade requests (potentially
>> controlled by an attribute). This will allow the CLI etc to work, but at
>> the price of potentially reducing security, as some connections that would
>> have previously been redirected to use HTTPS will no longer do this.
>>
>> 3) Enable it by default and leave it broken. We can setup some kind of
>> automatic trust store thing so the local CLI works, and can get our test
>> suite to work with Arquillian in a similar manner. Personally I think this
>> is a terrible idea, but I am including it for completeness.
>>
>> Personally I think we should go for 1). Given that this is supposed to be
>> about developer usability I don't think having management also use SSL as
>> being that important.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Jason T. Greene <jason.greene at redhat.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Awesome! Another idea I had on how we could get away with it being in
>>> server boot, is to have a pre-boot first time setup task, either launched
>>> from the shell/batch scripts or as a special pre-step before the AS module
>>> loads. We could then report boot time as the time AFTER first time
>>> installation tasks have completed, which I think is fair because the server
>>> hasn't yet been started.
>>>
>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 11:53 PM, Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have some initial work on this at:
>>> https://github.com/stuartwdouglas/wildfly-core/tree/WFCORE-1576
>>>
>>> If you go to https://localhost:9993 it will generate the certificate
>>> (although all that will be served is a 404 page as the console is not
>>> installed).
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Stuart Douglas <
>>> stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that would actually end up being more complex.
>>>>
>>>> Stuart
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Jason T. Greene <
>>>> jason.greene at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Another option could be a post boot task. So it's still eager but
>>>>> don't block completed start. We'd still need to block Tls ports though. So
>>>>> maybe this does not help
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 9:31 PM, Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2048 bits adds close to a second to first boot on my machine
>>>>> (obviously subsequent boots are unaffected).
>>>>>
>>>>> This is probably a bit much, I will work on getting a POC for the lazy
>>>>> loading approach implemented.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Jason T. Greene <
>>>>> jason.greene at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We should really be generating 2048 bit keys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't like adding to our boot time, we have already seen it grow
>>>>>> and this would be yet another case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:57 PM, Stuart Douglas <
>>>>>> stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I just did up a very quick prototype that generates self signed
>>>>>> certificates on startup and it looks like the difference in startup time is
>>>>>> negligible (at least when generating 1024 bit RSA keys). Even if the
>>>>>> difference is measurable it only affects the very first startup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that in order to simplify the implementation of this it may
>>>>>> be better to simply generate the key of first startup, instead of
>>>>>> attempting to do it lazily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Jason T. Greene <
>>>>>> jason.greene at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What will be default keysize? It has to be probably choosen to work
>>>>>>>> also without "Java Cryptography Extension (JCE) Unlimited Strength
>>>>>>>> Jurisdiction Policy"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably the largest that is supported without JCE. It does not
>>>>>>> matter that much, self signed certs are inherently insecure, this is a
>>>>>>> developer usability feature, not something that can be used in production.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IIRC there is actually no limit on RSA key size, it's only symmetric
>>>>>>> algs that are limited, so we could use a standard 2048 bit key without
>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Stuart Douglas <
>>>>>>>> stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I guess we should talk about how this should actually work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In terms of auto generating the key I was thinking we would need
>>>>>>>>> to add a new attribute to the 'keystore' element under the security realm,
>>>>>>>>> something like 'auto-generate-cert-host="localhost"'. I am not sure what
>>>>>>>>> other options we would need, or how configurable we should make it, but as
>>>>>>>>> this is for testing/development purposes I don't think we need to expose
>>>>>>>>> full control over the certificate generation process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In terms of the implementation we could just implement an
>>>>>>>>> SSLContext wrapper, that can do the generation and then create a 'real'
>>>>>>>>> SSLContext the first time it is asked to create and SSLEngine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Jason Greene <
>>>>>>>>> jason.greene at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > On Jun 2, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Harold Campbell <hcamp at muerte.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 09:22 +1000, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> I would like to propose that we add support for HTTP/2 out of
>>>>>>>>>> the box
>>>>>>>>>> >> in Wildfly 10.1.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > This lowly user desperately wants a release containing the fix
>>>>>>>>>> to WFLY-
>>>>>>>>>> > 6283 sooner rather than later. I'm sure other people have other
>>>>>>>>>> pet
>>>>>>>>>> > bugs awaiting release.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > I have no opinion on HTTP/2 being added other than to ask that
>>>>>>>>>> pent up
>>>>>>>>>> > bug fixes be kept in mind.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Harold,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That fix is already in master, so it will be included in 10.1.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Jason T. Greene
>>>>>>>>>> WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
>>>>>>>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jason T. Greene
>> WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/wildfly-dev/attachments/20160608/5352d6c2/attachment-0001.html 