Wandering Thoughts archives

Our Grafana and Loki installs have quietly become 'legacy software' here

At this point we've been running Grafana for quite some time (since late 2018), and (Grafana) Loki for rather less time and on a more ad-hoc and experimental basis. However, over time both have become 'legacy software' here, by which I mean that we (I) have frozen their versions and don't update them any more, and we (I) mostly or entirely don't touch their configurations any more (including, with Grafana, building or changing dashboards).

We froze our Grafana version due to backward compatibility issues. With Loki I could say that I ran out of enthusiasm for going through updates, but part of it was that Loki explicitly deprecated 'promtail' in favour of a more complex solution ('Alloy') that seemed to mostly neglect the one promtail feature we seriously cared about, namely reading logs from the systemd/journald complex. Another factor was it became increasingly obvious that Loki was not intended for our simple setup and future versions of Loki might well work even worse in it than our current version does.

Part of Grafana and Loki going without updates and becoming 'legacy' is that any future changes in them would be big changes. If we ever have to update our Grafana version, we'll likely have to rebuild a significant number of our current dashboards, because they use panels that aren't supported any more and the replacements have a quite different look and effect, requiring substantial dashboard changes for the dashboards to stay decently usable. With Loki, if the current version stopped working I'd probably either discard the idea entirely (which would make me a bit sad, as I've done useful things through Loki) or switch to something else that had similar functionality. Trying to navigate the rapids of updating to a current Loki is probably roughly as much work (and has roughly as much chance of requiring me to restart our log collection from scratch) as moving to another project.

(People keep mentioning VictoriaLogs (and I know people have had good experiences with it), but my motivation for touching any part of our Loki environment is very low. It works, it hasn't eaten the server it's on and shows no sign of doing that any time soon, and I'm disinclined to do any more work with smart log collection until a clear need shows up. Our canonical source of history for logs continues to be our central syslog server.)

The five platforms we have to cover when planning systems

Suppose, not entirely hypothetically, that you're going to need a 'VPN' system that authenticates through OIDC. What platforms do you need this VPN system to support? In our environment, the answer is that we have five platforms that we need to care about, and they're the obvious four plus one more: Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, and Linux.

We need to cover these five platforms because people here use our services from all of those platforms. Both Windows and macOS are popular on laptops (and desktops, which still linger around), and there's enough people who use Linux to be something we need to care about. On mobile devices (phones and tablets), obviously iOS and Android are the two big options, with people using either or both. We don't usually worry about the versions of Windows and macOS and suggest that people to stick to supported ones, but that may need to change with Windows 10.

Needing to support mobile devices unquestionably narrows our options for what we can use, at least in theory, because there are certain sorts of things you can semi-reasonably do on Linux, macOS, and Windows that are infeasible to do (at least for us) on mobile devices. But we have to support access to various of our services even on iOS and Android, which constrains us to certain sorts of solutions, and ideally ones that can deal with network interruptions (which are quite common on mobile devices in Toronto, as anyone who takes our subways is familiar with).

(And obviously it's easier for open source systems to support Linux, macOS, and Windows than it is for them to extend this support to Android and especially iOS. This extends to us patching and rebuilding them for local needs; with various modern languages, we can produce Windows or macOS binaries from modified open source projects. Not so much for mobile devices.)

In an ideal world it would be easy to find out the support matrix of platforms (and features) for any given project. In this world, the information can sometimes be obscure, especially for what features are supported on what platforms. One of my resolutions to myself is that when I find interesting projects but they seem to have platform limitations, I should note down where in their documentation they discuss this, so I can find it later to see if things have changed (or to discuss with people why certain projects might be troublesome).

Two broad approaches to having Multi-Factor Authentication everywhere

In this modern age, more and more people are facing more and more pressure to have pervasive Multi-Factor Authentication, with every authentication your people perform protected by MFA in some way. I've come to feel that there are two broad approaches to achieving this and one of them is more realistic than the other, although it's also less appealing in some ways and less neat (and arguably less secure).

The 'proper' way to protect everything with MFA is to separately and individually add MFA to everything you have that does authentication. Ideally you will have a central 'single sign on' system, perhaps using OIDC, and certainly your people will want you to have only one form of MFA even if it's not all run through your SSO. What this implies is that you need to add MFA to every service and protocol you have, which ranges from generally easy (websites) through being annoying to people or requiring odd things (SSH) to almost impossible at the moment (IMAP, authenticated SMTP, and POP3). If you opt to set it up with no exemptions for internal access, this approach to MFA insures that absolutely everything is MFA protected without any holes through which an un-MFA'd authentication can be done.

The other way is to create some form of MFA-protected network access (a VPN, a mesh network, a MFA-authenticated SSH jumphost, there are many options) and then restrict all non-MFA access to coming through this MFA-protected network access. For services where it's easy enough, you might support additional MFA authenticated access from outside your special network. For other services where MFA isn't easy or isn't feasible, they're only accessible from the MFA-protected environment and a necessary step for getting access to them is to bring up your MFA-protected connection. This approach to MFA has the obvious problem that if someone gets access to your MFA-protected network, they have non-MFA access to everything else, and the not as obvious problem that attackers might be able to MFA as one person to the network access and then do non-MFA authentication as another person on your systems and services.

The proper way is quite appealing to system administrators. It gives us an array of interesting challenges to solve, neat technology to poke at, and appealingly strong security guarantees. Unfortunately the proper way has two downsides; there's essentially no chance of it covering your IMAP and authenticated SMTP services any time soon (unless you're willing to accept some significant restrictions), and it requires your people to learn and use a bewildering variety of special purpose, one-off interfaces and sometimes software (and when it needs software, there may be restrictions on what platforms the software is readily available on). Although it's less neat and less nominally secure, the practical advantage of the MFA protected network access approach is that it's universal and it's one single thing for people to deal with (and by extension, as long as the network system itself covers all platforms you care about, your services are fully accessible from all platforms).

(In practice the MFA protected network approach will probably be two things for people to deal with, not one, since if you have websites the natural way to protect them is with OIDC (or if you have to, SAML) through your single sign on system. Hopefully your SSO system is also what's being used for the MFA network access, so people only have to sign on to it once a day or whatever.)

Our need for re-provisioning support in mesh networks (and elsewhere)

In a comment on my entry on how WireGuard mesh networks need a provisioning system, vcarceler pointed me to Innernet (also), an interesting but opinionated provisioning system for WireGuard. However, two bits of it combined made me twitch a bit; Innernet only allows you to provision a given node once, and once a node is assigned an internal IP, that IP is never reused. This lack of support for re-provisioning machines would be a problem for us and we'd likely have to do something about it, one way or another. Nor is this an issue unique to Innernet, as a number of mesh network systems have it.

Our important servers have fixed, durable identities, and in practice these identities are both DNS names and IP addresses (we have some generic machines, but they aren't as important). We also regularly re-provision these servers, which is to say that we reinstall them from scratch, usually on new hardware. In the usual course of events this happens roughly every two years or every four years, depending on whether we're upgrading the machine for every Ubuntu LTS release or every other one. Over time this is a lot of re-provisionings, and we need the re-provisioned servers to keep their 'identity' when this happens.

We especially need to be able to rebuild a dead server as an identical replacement if its hardware completely breaks and eats its system disks. We're already in a crisis, we don't want to have a worse crisis because other things need to be updated because we can't exactly replace the server but instead have to build a new server that fills the same role, or will once DNS is updated, configurations are updated, etc etc.

This is relatively straightforward for regular Linux servers with regular networking; there's the issue of SSH host keys, but there's several solutions. But obviously there's a problem if the server is also a mesh network node and the mesh network system will not let it be re-provisioned under the same name or the same internal IP address. Accepting this limitation would make it difficult to use the mesh network for some things, especially things where we don't want to depend on DNS working (for example, sending system logs via syslog). Working around the limitation requires reverse engineering where the mesh network system stores local state and hopefully being able to save a copy elsewhere and restore it; among other things, this has implications for the mesh network system's security model.

For us, it would be better if mesh networking systems explicitly allowed this re-provisioning. They could make it a non-default setting that took explicit manual action on the part of the network administrator (and possibly required nodes to cooperate and extend more trust than normal to the central provisioning system). Or a system like Innernet could have a separate class of IP addresses, call them 'service addresses', that could be assigned and reassigned to nodes by administrators. A node would always have its unique identity but could also be assigned one or more service addresses.

(Of course our other option is to not use a mesh network system that imposes this restriction, even if it would otherwise make our lives easier. Unless we really need the system for some other reason or its local state management is explicitly documented, this is our more likely choice.)

PS: The other problem with permanently 'consuming' IP addresses as machines are re-provisioned is that you run out of them sooner or later unless you use gigantic network blocks that are many times larger than the number of servers you'll ever have (well, in IPv4, but we're not going to switch to IPv6 just to enable a mesh network provisioning system).

Using WireGuard seriously as a mesh network needs a provisioning system

One thing that my recent experience expanding our WireGuard mesh network has driven home to me is how (and why) WireGuard needs a provisioning system, especially if you're using it as a mesh networking system. In fact I think that if you use a mesh WireGuard setup at any real scale, you're going to wind up either adopting or building such a provisioning system.

In a 'VPN' WireGuard setup with a bunch of clients and one or a small number of gateway servers, adding a new client is mostly a matter of generating and giving it some critical information. However, it's possible to more or less automate this and make it relatively easy for people who want to connect to you to do this. You'll still need to update your WireGuard VPN server too, but at least you only have one of them (probably), and it may well be the host where you generate the client configuration and provide it to the client's owner.

The extra problem with adding a new client to a WireGuard mesh network is that there's many more WireGuard nodes that need to be updated (and also the new client needs a lot more information; it needs to know about all of the other nodes it's supposed to talk to). More broadly, every time you change the mesh network configuration, every node needs to update with the new information. If you add a client, remove a client, a client changes its keys for some reason (perhaps it had to be re-provisioned because the hardware died), all of these means nodes need updates (or at least the nodes that talk to the changed node). In the VPN model, only the VPN server node (and the new client) needed updates.

Our little WireGuard mesh is operating at a small scale, so we can afford to do this by hand. As you have more WireGuard nodes and more changes in nodes, you're not going to want to manually update things one by one, any more than you want to do that for other system administration work. Thus, you're going to want some sort of a provisioning system, where at a minimum you can say 'this is a new node' or 'this node has been removed' and all of your WireGuard configurations are regenerated, propagated to WireGuard nodes, trigger WireGuard configuration reloads, and so on. Some amount of this can be relatively generic in your configuration management system, but not all of it.

(Many configuration systems can propagate client-specific files to clients on changes and then trigger client side actions when the files are updated. But you have to build the per-client WireGuard configuration.)

PS: I haven't looked into systems that will do this for you, either as pure WireGuard provisioning systems or as bigger 'mesh networking using WireGuard' software, so I don't have any opinions on how you want to handle this. I don't even know if people have built and published things that are just WireGuard provisioning systems, or if everything out there is a 'mesh networking based on WireGuard' complex system.

Chosing between "it works for now" and "it works in the long term"

A comment on my entry about how Netplan can only have WireGuard peers in one file made me realize one of my implicit system administration views (it's the first one by Jon). That is the tradeoff between something that works now and something that not only works now but is likely to keep working in the long term. In system administration this is a tradeoff, not an obvious choice, because what you want is different depending on the circumstances.

Something that works now is, for example, something that works because of how Netplan's code is currently written, where you can hack around an issue by structuring your code, your configuration files, or your system in a particular way. As a system administrator I do a surprisingly large amount of these, for example to fix or work around issues in systemd units that people have written in less than ideal or simply mistaken ways.

Something that's going to keep working in the longer term is doing things 'correctly', which is to say in whatever way that the software wants you to do and supports. Sometimes this means doing things the hard way when the software doesn't actually implement some feature that would make your life better, even if you could work around it with something that works now but isn't necessarily guaranteed to keep working in the future.

When you need something to work and there's no other way to do it, you have to take a solution that (only) works now. Sometimes you take a 'works now' solution even if there's an alternative because you expect your works-now version to be good enough for the lifetime of this system, this OS release, or whatever; you'll revisit things for the next version (at least in theory, workarounds to get things going can last a surprisingly long time if they don't break anything). You can't always insist on a 'works now and in the future' solution.

On the other hand, sometimes you don't want to do a works-now thing even if you could. A works-now thing is in some sense technical debt, with all that that implies, and this particular situation isn't important enough to justify taking on such debt. You may solve the problem properly, or you may decide that the problem isn't big and important enough to solve at all and you'll leave things in their imperfect state. One of the things I think about when making this decision is how annoying it would be and how much would have to change if my works-now solution broke because of some update.

(Another is how ugly the works-now solution is, including how big of a note we're going to want to write for our future selves so we can understand what this peculiar load bearing thing is. The longer the note, the more I generally wind up questioning the decision.)

It can feel bad to not deal with a problem by taking a works-now solution. After all, it works, and otherwise you're stuck with the problem (or with less pleasant solutions). But sometimes it's the right option and the works-now solution is simply 'too clever'.

(I've undoubtedly made this decision many times over my career. But Jon's comment and my reply to it crystalized the distinction between a 'works now' and a 'works for the long term' solution in my mind in a way that I think I can sort of articulate.)

The complexity of mixing mesh networking and routes to subnets

One of the in things these days is encrypted (overlay) mesh networks, where you have a bunch of nodes and the nodes have encrypted connections to each other that they use for (at least) internal IP traffic. WireGuard is one of the things that can be used for this. A popular thing to add to such mesh network solutions is 'subnet routes', where nodes will act as gateways to specific subnets, not just endpoints in themselves. This way, if you have an internal network of servers at your cloud provider, you can establish a single node on your mesh network and route to the internal network through that node, rather than having to enroll every machine in the internal network.

(There are various reasons not to enroll every machine, including that on some of them it would be a security or stability risk.)

In simple configurations this is easy to reason about and easy to set up through the tools that these systems tend to give you. Unfortunately, our network configuration isn't simple. We have an environment with multiple internal networks, some of which are partially firewalled off from each other, and where people would want to enroll various internal machines in any mesh networking setup (partly so they can be reached directly). This creates problems for a simple 'every node can advertise some routes and you accept the whole bundle' model.

The first problem is what I'll call the direct subnet problem. Suppose that you have a subnet with a bunch of machines on it and two of them are nodes (call them A and B), with one of them (call it A) advertising a route to the subnet so that other machines in the mesh can reach it. The direct subnet problem is that you don't want B to ever send its traffic for the subnet to A; since it's directly connected to the subnet, it should send the traffic directly. Whether or not this happens automatically depends on various implementation choices the setup makes.

The second problem is the indirect subnet problem. Suppose that you have a collection of internal networks that can all talk to each other (perhaps through firewalls and somewhat selectively). Not all of the machines on all of the internal networks are part of the mesh, and you want people who are outside of your networks to be able to reach all of the internal machines, so you have a mesh node that advertises routes to all of your internal networks. However, if a mesh node is already inside your perimeter and can reach your internal networks, you don't want it to go through your mesh gateway; you want it to send its traffic directly.

(You especially want this if mesh nodes have different mesh IPs from their normal IPs, because you probably want the traffic to come from the normal IP, not the mesh IP.)

You can handle the direct subnet case with a general rule like 'if you're directly attached to this network, ignore a mesh subnet route to it', or by some automatic system like route priorities. The indirect subnet case can't be handled automatically because it requires knowledge about your specific network configuration and what can reach what without the mesh (and what you want to reach what without the mesh, since some traffic you want to go over the mesh even if there's a non-mesh route between the two nodes). As far as I can see, to deal with this you need the ability to selectively configure or accept (subnet) routes on a mesh node by mesh node basis.

(In a simple topology you can get away with accepting or not accepting all subnet routes, but in a more complex one you can't. You might have two separate locations, each with their own set of internal subnets. Mesh nodes in each location want the other location's subnet routes, but not their own location's subnet routes.)