Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Move key_global into RemoteAllocator #608

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 26, 2023
Merged

Conversation

mjp41
Copy link
Member

@mjp41 mjp41 commented Mar 28, 2023

There was a mis-compilation in a Verona configuration that lead to two instances of key_global existing. This change moves it inside a struct that seems to fix the issue.

The rest of the changes are limiting the use of key_global as both RemoteCache and RemoteAllocator must use the same configuration, so there is no need to take the key_global as a parameter.

There was a mis-compilation in a Verona configuration that lead to
two instances of key_global existing.  This change moves it inside
a struct that seems to fix the issue.

The rest of the changes are limiting the use of key_global as both
RemoteCache and RemoteAllocator must use the same configuration,
so there is no need to take the key_global as a parameter.
@mjp41 mjp41 requested a review from nwf-msr March 31, 2023 18:41
Copy link
Collaborator

@nwf nwf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. I wonder if it's worth having a comment somewhere in the tree (maybe just in docs/security?) about the choice of using a single key. On the one hand:

  • we don't have to read anything extra from the RemoteAllocator* in the pagemap
  • we don't have to do any rewriting when forwarding a list of messages
    On the other:
  • well, it is a shared secret and its shared nature might, theoretically, make it easier to leak?

@mjp41 mjp41 merged commit 55376aa into microsoft:main Apr 26, 2023
@mjp41 mjp41 deleted the key_global branch April 26, 2023 16:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants