-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 360
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
feat: make id_token mutator cache configurable #1177
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: make id_token mutator cache configurable #1177
Conversation
6146085
to
6ad3106
Compare
pipeline/mutate/mutator_id_token.go
Outdated
BufferItems: 64, | ||
Cost: func(value interface{}) int64 { | ||
return 1 | ||
}, | ||
IgnoreInternalCost: true, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be discussed if this is really the best strategy for id_token
.
I'm less familiar with other use cases of generated id_token
and also how ristretto
computes the "cost".
For now, this is copied from the AuthN OAuth2 introspection handler.
But perhaps saying that each id_token = 1 cost would cache too many id_tokens.
I'd like @aeneasr's opinion here :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the current state it does not work, but we could at least do
NumCounters: 10000,
BufferItems: 64,
MaxCost: cost,
to keep the same behaviour as previously.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cost = 1 << 25
as the default is definitely too many now that the cost function is 1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since JWTs can be quite long it may make more sense to calculate the cost based on the string length to have an approximation of storage use
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That could make sense indeed 👍
Then the default limit of 1 << 25 (~33.5 million), if we estimate an average length of JWT of a few thousands char, we should be able to store some tens of thousands of keys - which sounds reasonable.
6ad3106
to
7a46fd0
Compare
7a46fd0
to
2b89d1e
Compare
pipeline/mutate/mutator_id_token.go
Outdated
a.tokenCache.SetWithTTL( | ||
key, | ||
&idTokenCacheContainer{ | ||
TTL: ttl, | ||
ExpiresAt: expiresAt, | ||
Token: token, | ||
}, | ||
0, | ||
ttl, | ||
) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Another probably reason for the memory leak:
Keys are only deleted from cache when requested and expired.
I don't know if ristretto flushes other keys when the max cost is reached, but this could be another lead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We deployed this in production, and it fixed the memory leak indeed :)
2f91f5e
to
e78b048
Compare
"cache": { | ||
"additionalProperties": false, | ||
"type": "object", | ||
"properties": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have a bunch of other caches in the config schema already. Can you make your change so that it is more similar (identical) to those other cache configurations? The max_cost
parameter in particular is really opaque and its impossible to come up with a reasonable value without knowing the implementation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with the remark on max_cost
👍
A value with similar semantics is used today for the OAuth2 introspection authenticator, so I mainly mimicked this one.
Else, there is also max_tokens
, used by the OAuth2 client credentials authenticator.
I think the reason for the cost
instead comes from the fact that the cached objects have variable lengths, so storing a certain number of objects will result in a different cache memory usage depending on your config.
However, one can also make the decision to let the user make this decision anyway :)
Let me know what makes most sense to you, and Ory's strategy around these questions (should the product have the same defaults for everyone, or is the user trusted to configure this accordingly).
For the enabled/disabled
value, I didn't re-use the existing
"handlerSwitch": {
"title": "Enabled",
"type": "boolean",
"default": false,
"examples": [true],
"description": "En-/disables this component."
},
to avoid introducing a breaking change.
Currently, the id_token
cache is enabled by default, and didn't wanna change the default value to false - so I couldn't re-use this configuration.
And finally, this cache config has no TTL, because the id_token mutator already has a TTL config value for the JWT expiration date.
It make sense to me to re-use the same value => cache for 15 min if the JWT is valid 15min.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ideally, we would probably have one namespaced cache for all of oathkeeper and then use that everywhere, but this is good for now!
Token: token, | ||
}, | ||
0, | ||
ttl, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In other caches, I believe we set the TTL to min(TTL, time.Until(expiresAt)
. That would make sense here too IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
They should be same normally. Since calling this method does:
now := time.Now().UTC()
exp := now.Add(ttl)
[...]
a.tokenToCache(c, session, templateClaims, ttl, exp, signed)
Or what am I missing? :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
func (a *MutatorIDToken) SetCaching(token bool) { | ||
a.tokenCacheEnabled = token | ||
} | ||
|
||
type idTokenCacheContainer struct { | ||
ExpiresAt time.Time |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I haven't looked at this code in detail, but ExpiresAt
+TTL
seem to be semantically the same thing? Do we even need to store these in the cache?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch, we don't!
I think that's what was buggy in the first place: we don't set an actual TTL in the cache, but instead cache the TTL along with the token.
I pushed an edit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This only changes cache sizes and not the actual caching function itself, right? If so I think we’re very close!
I'm glad to read this 😁 At the time of writing this patch does:
|
8c5806e
to
d48aa10
Compare
d48aa10
to
4229ee6
Compare
Hey @aeneasr I hope you're well :) Did you get a chance to have a look again? 😇 Perhaps this can make it into the next version? |
Make the
id_token
mutator cache configurable:max_cost
➡️ And set a TTL on the cached JWTs in the⚠️
id_token
mutator.This part fixes a memory leak in Oathkeeper
We are running internally a fork of Oathkeeper with this patch applied, and the resulting memory footprint:
Related issue(s)
Follow up of #1171
Related docs PR: ory/docs#1820
Checklist
introduces a new feature.
contributing code guidelines.
vulnerability. If this pull request addresses a security vulnerability, I
confirm that I got the approval (please contact
security@ory.sh) from the maintainers to push
the changes.
works.
Further Comments