From: "Shannon Sterz" <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
To: "Samuel Rufinatscha" <s.rufinatscha@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/3] pbs-config: cache verified API token secrets
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2025 15:04:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DEQC8V17QVC8.MDWJDTV3DB71@proxmox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251205132559.197434-2-s.rufinatscha@proxmox.com>
On Fri Dec 5, 2025 at 2:25 PM CET, Samuel Rufinatscha wrote:
> 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();
any reason you are using a once cell with a cutom get_or_init function
instead of a simple `LazyCell` [1] here? seems to me that this would be
the more appropriate type here? similar question for the
proxmox-access-control portion of this series.
[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/cell/struct.LazyCell.html
> +
> #[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) {
> + // 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
> + }
> +
> + // 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());
> + 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());
> +
> Ok(())
> }
>
> @@ -97,5 +124,34 @@ pub fn delete_secret(tokenid: &Authid) -> Result<(), Error> {
> data.remove(tokenid);
> write_file(data)?;
>
> + cache_remove_secret(tokenid);
> +
> 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();
unwrap here could panic if another thread is holding a guard, any reason
to not return a result here and bubble up the error instead?
> + cache.secrets.insert(tokenid, secret);
> +}
> +
> +fn cache_remove_secret(tokenid: &Authid) {
> + let mut cache = token_secret_cache().write().unwrap();
same here and in the following patches (i won't comment on each
occurrence there separately.)
> + cache.secrets.remove(tokenid);
> +}
_______________________________________________
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:[~2025-12-05 14:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ 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 [this message]
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
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=DEQC8V17QVC8.MDWJDTV3DB71@proxmox.com \
--to=s.sterz@proxmox.com \
--cc=pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com \
--cc=s.rufinatscha@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