From: Samuel Rufinatscha <s.rufinatscha@proxmox.com>
To: "Fabian Grünbichler" <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>,
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/3] pbs-config: cache verified API token secrets
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:35:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1cd8309f-b540-42a6-bfc2-f25a827ca6d3@proxmox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <176536727121.112734.7971677008461802558@yuna.proxmox.com>
On 12/10/25 12:47 PM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> Quoting Samuel Rufinatscha (2025-12-05 14:25:54)
>> Currently, every token-based API request reads the token.shadow file and
>> runs the expensive password hash verification for the given token
>> secret. This shows up as a hotspot in /status profiling (see
>> bug #6049 [1]).
>>
>> This patch introduces an in-memory cache of successfully verified token
>> secrets. Subsequent requests for the same token+secret combination only
>> perform a comparison using openssl::memcmp::eq and avoid re-running the
>> password hash. The cache is updated when a token secret is set and
>> cleared when a token is deleted. Note, this does NOT include manual
>> config changes, which will be covered in a subsequent patch.
>>
>> This patch partly fixes bug #6049 [1].
>>
>> [1] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=7017
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Samuel Rufinatscha <s.rufinatscha@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> pbs-config/src/token_shadow.rs | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/pbs-config/src/token_shadow.rs b/pbs-config/src/token_shadow.rs
>> index 640fabbf..47aa2fc2 100644
>> --- a/pbs-config/src/token_shadow.rs
>> +++ b/pbs-config/src/token_shadow.rs
>> @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
>> use std::collections::HashMap;
>> +use std::sync::RwLock;
>>
>> use anyhow::{bail, format_err, Error};
>> +use once_cell::sync::OnceCell;
>> use serde::{Deserialize, Serialize};
>> use serde_json::{from_value, Value};
>>
>> @@ -13,6 +15,13 @@ use crate::{open_backup_lockfile, BackupLockGuard};
>> const LOCK_FILE: &str = pbs_buildcfg::configdir!("/token.shadow.lock");
>> const CONF_FILE: &str = pbs_buildcfg::configdir!("/token.shadow");
>>
>> +/// Global in-memory cache for successfully verified API token secrets.
>> +/// The cache stores plain text secrets for token Authids that have already been
>> +/// verified against the hashed values in `token.shadow`. This allows for cheap
>> +/// subsequent authentications for the same token+secret combination, avoiding
>> +/// recomputing the password hash on every request.
>> +static TOKEN_SECRET_CACHE: OnceCell<RwLock<ApiTokenSecretCache>> = OnceCell::new();
>> +
>> #[derive(Serialize, Deserialize)]
>> #[serde(rename_all = "kebab-case")]
>> /// ApiToken id / secret pair
>> @@ -54,9 +63,25 @@ pub fn verify_secret(tokenid: &Authid, secret: &str) -> Result<(), Error> {
>> bail!("not an API token ID");
>> }
>>
>> + // Fast path
>> + if let Some(cached) = token_secret_cache().read().unwrap().secrets.get(tokenid) {
>
> did you benchmark this with a lot of parallel token requests? a plain RwLock
> gives no guarantees at all w.r.t. ordering or fairness, so a lot of token-based
> requests could effectively prevent token removal AFAICT (or vice-versa,
> spamming token creation could lock out all tokens?)
>
> since we don't actually require the cache here to proceed, we could also make this a try_read
> or a read with timeout, and fallback to the slow path if there is too much
> contention? alternatively, comparing with parking_lot would also be
> interesting, since that implementation does have fairness guarantees.
>
> note that token-based requests are basically doable by anyone being able to
> reach PBS, whereas token creation/deletion is available to every authenticaed
> user.
>
Thanks for the review Fabian and the valuable comments!
I did not benchmark the RwLock itself under load. Your point about
contention/fairness for RwLock makes perfect sense, and we should
consider this. So for v2, I will integrate try_read() /
try_write() as mentioned to avoid possible contention / DoS issues.
I’ll also consider parking_lot::RwLock, thanks for the hint!
>> + // Compare cached secret with provided one using constant time comparison
>> + if openssl::memcmp::eq(cached.as_bytes(), secret.as_bytes()) {
>> + // Already verified before
>> + return Ok(());
>> + }
>> + // Fall through to slow path if secret doesn't match cached one
>> + }
>
> this could also be a helper, like the rest. then it would consume (a reference
> to) the user-provided secret value, instead of giving access to all cached
> ones. doesn't make a real difference now other than consistence, but the cache
> is (more) cleanly encapsulated then.
>
>> +
>> + // Slow path: read file + verify hash
>> let data = read_file()?;
>> match data.get(tokenid) {
>> - Some(hashed_secret) => proxmox_sys::crypt::verify_crypt_pw(secret, hashed_secret),
>> + Some(hashed_secret) => {
>> + proxmox_sys::crypt::verify_crypt_pw(secret, hashed_secret)?;
>> + // Cache the plain secret for future requests
>> + cache_insert_secret(tokenid.clone(), secret.to_owned());
>
> same applies here - storing the value in the cache is optional (and good if it
> works), but we don't want to stall forever waiting for the cache insertion to
> go through..
>
>> + Ok(())
>> + }
>> None => bail!("invalid API token"),
>> }
>> }
>> @@ -82,6 +107,8 @@ fn set_secret(tokenid: &Authid, secret: &str) -> Result<(), Error> {
>> data.insert(tokenid.clone(), hashed_secret);
>> write_file(data)?;
>>
>> + cache_insert_secret(tokenid.clone(), secret.to_owned());
>
> this
>
>> +
>> Ok(())
>> }
>>
>> @@ -97,5 +124,34 @@ pub fn delete_secret(tokenid: &Authid) -> Result<(), Error> {
>> data.remove(tokenid);
>> write_file(data)?;
>>
>> + cache_remove_secret(tokenid);
>
> and this need to block of course and can't be skipped, because otherwise the
> read above might operate on wrong data..
>
>> +
>> Ok(())
>> }
>> +
>> +struct ApiTokenSecretCache {
>> + /// Keys are token Authids, values are the corresponding plain text secrets.
>> + /// Entries are added after a successful on-disk verification in
>> + /// `verify_secret` or when a new token secret is generated by
>> + /// `generate_and_set_secret`. Used to avoid repeated
>> + /// password-hash computation on subsequent authentications.
>> + secrets: HashMap<Authid, String>,
>> +}
>> +
>> +fn token_secret_cache() -> &'static RwLock<ApiTokenSecretCache> {
>> + TOKEN_SECRET_CACHE.get_or_init(|| {
>> + RwLock::new(ApiTokenSecretCache {
>> + secrets: HashMap::new(),
>> + })
>> + })
>> +}
>> +
>> +fn cache_insert_secret(tokenid: Authid, secret: String) {
>> + let mut cache = token_secret_cache().write().unwrap();
>> + cache.secrets.insert(tokenid, secret);
>> +}
>> +
>> +fn cache_remove_secret(tokenid: &Authid) {
>> + let mut cache = token_secret_cache().write().unwrap();
>> + cache.secrets.remove(tokenid);
>> +}
>> --
>> 2.47.3
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pbs-devel mailing list
>> pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
>> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
pbs-devel mailing list
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-10 15:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-05 13:25 [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox{-backup, } 0/6] Reduce token.shadow verification overhead Samuel Rufinatscha
2025-12-05 13:25 ` [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/3] pbs-config: cache verified API token secrets Samuel Rufinatscha
2025-12-05 14:04 ` Shannon Sterz
2025-12-09 13:29 ` Samuel Rufinatscha
2025-12-10 11:47 ` Fabian Grünbichler
2025-12-10 15:35 ` Samuel Rufinatscha [this message]
2025-12-15 15:05 ` Samuel Rufinatscha
2025-12-15 19:00 ` Samuel Rufinatscha
2025-12-05 13:25 ` [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 2/3] pbs-config: invalidate token-secret cache on token.shadow changes Samuel Rufinatscha
2025-12-05 13:25 ` [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 3/3] pbs-config: add TTL window to token secret cache Samuel Rufinatscha
2025-12-05 13:25 ` [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox 1/3] proxmox-access-control: cache verified API token secrets Samuel Rufinatscha
2025-12-05 13:25 ` [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox 2/3] proxmox-access-control: invalidate token-secret cache on token.shadow changes Samuel Rufinatscha
2025-12-05 13:25 ` [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox 3/3] proxmox-access-control: add TTL window to token secret cache Samuel Rufinatscha
2025-12-05 14:06 ` [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox{-backup, } 0/6] Reduce token.shadow verification overhead Shannon Sterz
2025-12-09 13:58 ` Samuel Rufinatscha
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1cd8309f-b540-42a6-bfc2-f25a827ca6d3@proxmox.com \
--to=s.rufinatscha@proxmox.com \
--cc=f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com \
--cc=pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.