From: Dmitry Belyavskiy <beldmit@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 12:46:26 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: Design document of the run-time parameters activation
X-Git-Tag: openssl-3.2.0-alpha1~108
X-Git-Url: https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=9f5102bffc8bb3a9b02a0a5e3c1de4326622fe04

Design document of the run-time parameters activation

Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/21604)
---

diff --git a/doc/designs/prov_loadex.md b/doc/designs/prov_loadex.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..818f5cce2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/designs/prov_loadex.md
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+Providers run-time configuration
+================================
+
+Currently any provider run-time activation requires presence of the
+initialization parameters in the OpenSSL configuration file. Otherwise the
+provider will be activated with some "default" settings, that may or may not
+work for a particular application. For real-world systems it may require
+providing a specially designed OpenSSL config and passing it somehow (e.g. via
+environment) that has its obvious drawbacks.
+
+We need a possibility to initialize providers on per-application level
+according to per-application parameters. It's necessary for example for PKCS#11
+provider (where different applications may use different devices with different
+drivers) and will be useful for some other providers. In case of Red Hat it is
+also usable for FIPS provider.
+
+OpenSSL 3.2 introduces the API
+
+```C
+OSSL_PROVIDER *OSSL_PROVIDER_load_ex(OSSL_LIB_CTX *libctx, const char *name,
+                                     OSSL_PARAM params[]);
+```
+
+intended to configure the provider in load time.
+
+It accepts only parameters of type `OSSL_PARAM_UTF8_STRING` because any
+provider can be initialized from the config file where the values are
+represented as strings and provider init function has to deal with it.
+
+Explicitly configured parameters can contradict the parameters named in the
+configuration file. Here are the current design decisions and some possible
+future steps.
+
+Real-world cases
+----------------
+
+Many applications use PKCS#11 API with a specific drivers. OpenSSL PKCS#11
+provider <https://github.com/latchset/pkcs11-provider> also provides a set of
+tweaks usable in particular situations. So there are at least several scenarios
+I have in mind:
+
+1. Configure a provider in the config file, activate on demand
+2. Load/activate a provider run-time with parameters
+
+Current design
+--------------
+
+When the provider is loaded in the current library context and activated, the
+currently loaded provider will be returned as the result of
+`OSSL_PROVIDER_load_ex` call.
+
+When the provider is loaded in the current library context and NOT activated,
+the parameters provided int the `OSSL_PROVIDER_load_ex` call will have the
+preference.
+
+Separate instances of the provider can be loaded in the separate library
+contexts.
+
+Several instances of the same provider in the same context using different
+section names, module names (e.g. via symlinks) and provider names. But unless
+the provider does not support some configuration options, the algorithms in
+this case will have the same `provider` property and the result of fetching is
+not determined. We strongly discourage against this trick.
+
+The run-time change of the loaded provider configuration is not supported. If
+it is necessary, the calls to `OSSL_PROVIDER_unload` with the following call to
+the `OSSL_PROVIDER_load` or `OSSL_PROVIDER_load_ex` should be used.
+
+Possible future steps
+---------------------
+
+1. We should provide some API function accessing the configuration parameters
+   of a particular provider. Having it, the application will be able to combine
+   some default values with the app-specific ones in more or less intellectual
+   way.
+
+2. We probably should remove the `INFOPAIR` structure and use the `OSSL_PARAM`
+   one instead.