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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox