Tag Archives: guix

Verified Reproducible Tarballs

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Remember the XZ Utils backdoor? One factor that enabled the attack was poor auditing of the release tarballs for differences compared to the Git version controlled source code. This proved to be a useful place to distribute malicious data.

The differences between release tarballs and upstream Git sources is typically vendored and generated files. Lots of them. Auditing all source tarballs in a distribution for similar issues is hard and boring work for humans. Wouldn’t it be better if that human auditing time could be spent auditing the actual source code stored in upstream version control instead? That’s where auditing time would help the most.

Are there better ways to address the concern about differences between version control sources and tarball artifacts? Let’s consider some approaches:

  • Stop publishing (or at least stop building from) source tarballs that differ from version control sources.
  • Create recipes for how to derive the published source tarballs from version control sources. Verify that independently from upstream.

While I like the properties of the first solution, and have made effort to support that approach, I don’t think normal source tarballs are going away any time soon. I am concerned that it may not even be a desirable complete solution to this problem. We may need tarballs with pre-generated content in them for various reasons that aren’t entirely clear to us today.

So let’s consider the second approach. It could help while waiting for more experience with the first approach, to see if there are any fundamental problems with it.

How do you know that the XZ release tarballs was actually derived from its version control sources? The same for Gzip? Coreutils? Tar? Sed? Bash? GCC? We don’t know this! I am not aware of any automated or collaborative effort to perform this independent confirmation. Nor am I aware of anyone attempting to do this on a regular basis. We would want to be able to do this in the year 2042 too. I think the best way to reach that is to do the verification continuously in a pipeline, fixing bugs as time passes. The current state of the art seems to be that people audit the differences manually and hope to find something. I suspect many package maintainers ignore the problem and take the release source tarballs and trust upstream about this.

We can do better.

I have launched a project to setup a GitLab pipeline that invokes per-release scripts to rebuild that release artifact from git sources. Currently it only contain recipes for projects that I released myself. Releases which where done in a controlled way with considerable care to make reproducing the tarballs possible. The project homepage is here:

https://gitlab.com/debdistutils/verify-reproducible-releases

The project is able to reproduce the release tarballs for Libtasn1 v4.20.0, InetUtils v2.6, Libidn2 v2.3.8, Libidn v1.43, and GNU SASL v2.2.2. You can see this in a recent successful pipeline. All of those releases were prepared using Guix, and I’m hoping the Guix time-machine will make it possible to keep re-generating these tarballs for many years to come.

I spent some time trying to reproduce the current XZ release tarball for version 5.8.1. That would have been a nice example, wouldn’t it? First I had to somehow mimic upstream’s build environment. The XZ release tarball contains GNU Libtool files that are identified with version 2.5.4.1-baa1-dirty. I initially assumed this was due to the maintainer having installed libtool from git locally (after making some modifications) and made the XZ release using it. Later I learned that it may actually be coming from ArchLinux which ship with this particular libtool version. It seems weird for a distribution to use libtool built from a non-release tag, and furthermore applying patches to it, but things are what they are. I made some effort to setup an ArchLinux build environment, however the now-current Gettext version in ArchLinux seems to be more recent than the one that were used to prepare the XZ release. I don’t know enough ArchLinux to setup an environment corresponding to an earlier version of ArchLinux, which would be required to finish this. I gave up, maybe the XZ release wasn’t prepared on ArchLinux after all. Actually XZ became a good example for this writeup anyway: while you would think this should be trivial, the fact is that it isn’t! (There is another aspect here: fingerprinting the versions used to prepare release tarballs allows you to infer what kind of OS maintainers are using to make releases on, which is interesting on its own.)

I made some small attempts to reproduce the tarball for GNU Shepherd version 1.0.4 too, but I still haven’t managed to complete it.

Do you want a supply-chain challenge for the Easter weekend? Pick some well-known software and try to re-create the official release tarballs from the corresponding Git checkout. Is anyone able to reproduce anything these days? Bonus points for wrapping it up as a merge request to my project.

Happy Supply-Chain Security Hacking!

On Binary Distribution Rebuilds

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

I rebuilt (the top-50 popcon) Debian and Ubuntu packages, on amd64 and arm64, and compared the results a couple of months ago. Since then the Reproduce.Debian.net effort has been launched. Unlike my small experiment, that effort is a full-scale rebuild with more architectures. Their goal is to reproduce what is published in the Debian archive.

One differences between these two approaches are the build inputs: The Reproduce Debian effort use the same build inputs which were used to build the published packages. I’m using the latest version of published packages for the rebuild.

What does that difference imply? I believe reproduce.debian.net will be able to reproduce more of the packages in the archive. If you build a C program using one version of GCC you will get some binary output; and if you use a later GCC version you are likely to end up with a different binary output. This is a good thing: we want GCC to evolve and produce better output over time. However it means in order to reproduce the binaries we publish and use, we need to rebuild them using whatever build dependencies were used to prepare those binaries. The conclusion is that we need to use the old GCC to rebuild the program, and this appears to be the Reproduce.Debian.Net approach.

It would be a huge success if the Reproduce.Debian.net effort were to reach 100% reproducibility, and this seems to be within reach.

However I argue that we need go further than that. Being able to rebuild the packages reproducible using older binary packages only begs the question: can we rebuild those older packages? I fear attempting to do so ultimately leads to a need to rebuild 20+ year old packages, with a non-negligible amount of them being illegal to distribute or are unable to build anymore due to bit-rot. We won’t solve the Trusting Trust concern if our rebuild effort assumes some initial binary blob that we can no longer build from source code.

I’ve made an illustration of the effort I’m thinking of, to reach something that is stronger than reproducible rebuilds. I am calling this concept a Idempotent Rebuild, which is an old concept that I believe is the same as John Gilmore has described many years ago.

The illustration shows how the Debian main archive is used as input to rebuild another “stage #0” archive. This stage #0 archive can be compared with diffoscope to the main archive, and all differences are things that would be nice to resolve. The packages in the stage #0 archive is used to prepare a new container image with build tools, and the stage #0 archive is used as input to rebuild another version of itself, called the “stage #1” archive. The differences between stage #0 and stage #1 are also useful to analyse and resolve. This process can be repeated many times. I believe it would be a useful property if this process terminated at some point, where the stage #N archive was identical to the stage #N-1 archive. If this would happen, I label the output archive as an Idempotent Rebuild of the distribution.

How big is N today? The simplest assumption is that it is infinity. Any build timestamp embedded into binary packages will change on every iteration. This will cause the process to never terminate. Fixing embedded timestamps is something that the Reproduce.Debian.Net effort will also run into, and will have to resolve.

What other causes for differences could there be? It is easy to see that generally if some output is not deterministic, such as the sort order of assembler object code in binaries, then the output will be different. Trivial instances of this problem will be caught by the reproduce.debian.net effort as well.

Could there be higher order chains that lead to infinite N? It is easy to imagine the existence of these, but I don’t know how they would look like in practice.

An ideal would be if we could get down to N=1. Is that technically possible? Compare building GCC, it performs an initial stage 0 build using the system compiler to produce a stage 1 intermediate, which is used to build itself again to stage 2. Stage 1 and 2 is compared, and on success (identical binaries), the compilation succeeds. Here N=2. But this is performed using some unknown system compiler that is normally different from the GCC version being built. When rebuilding a binary distribution, you start with the same source versions. So it seems N=1 could be possible.

I’m unhappy to not be able to report any further technical progress now. The next step in this effort is to publish the stage #0 build artifacts in a repository, so they can be used to build stage #1. I already showed that stage #0 was around ~30% reproducible compared to the official binaries, but I didn’t save the artifacts in a reusable repository. Since the official binaries were not built using the latest versions, it is to be expected that the reproducibility number is low. But what happens at stage #1? The percentage should go up: we are now compare the rebuilds with an earlier rebuild, using the same build inputs. I’m eager to see this materialize, and hope to eventually make progress on this. However to build stage #1 I believe I need to rebuild a much larger number packages in stage #0, it could be roughly similar to the “build-essentials-depends” package set.

I believe the ultimate end goal of Idempotent Rebuilds is to be able to re-bootstrap a binary distribution like Debian from some other bootstrappable environment like Guix. In parallel to working on a achieving the 100% Idempotent Rebuild of Debian, we can setup a Guix environment that build Debian packages using Guix binaries. These builds ought to eventually converge to the same Debian binary packages, or there is something deeply problematic happening. This approach to re-bootstrap a binary distribution like Debian seems simpler than rebuilding all binaries going back to the beginning of time for that distribution.

What do you think?

PS. I fear that Debian main may have already went into a state where it is not able to rebuild itself at all anymore: the presence and assumption of non-free firmware and non-Debian signed binaries may have already corrupted the ability for Debian main to rebuild itself. To be able to complete the idempotent and bootstrapped rebuild of Debian, this needs to be worked out.

Reproducible Software Releases

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Around a year ago I discussed two concerns with software release archives (tarball artifacts) that could be improved to increase confidence in the supply-chain security of software releases. Repeating the goals for simplicity:

  • Release artifacts should be built in a way that can be reproduced by others
  • It should be possible to build a project from source tarball that doesn’t contain any generated or vendor files (e.g., in the style of git-archive).

While implementing these ideas for a small project was accomplished within weeks – see my announcement of Libntlm version 1.8 – adressing this in complex projects uncovered concerns with tools that had to be addressed, and things stalled for many months pending that work.

I had the notion that these two goals were easy and shouldn’t be hard to accomplish. I still believe that, but have had to realize that improving tooling to support these goals takes time. It seems clear that these concepts are not universally agreed on and implemented generally.

I’m now happy to recap some of the work that led to releases of libtasn1 v4.20.0, inetutils v2.6, libidn2 v2.3.8, libidn v1.43. These releases all achieve these goals. I am working on a bunch of more projects to support these ideas too.

What have the obstacles so far been to make this happen? It may help others who are in the same process of addressing these concerns to have a high-level introduction to the issues I encountered. Source code for projects above are available and anyone can look at the solutions to learn how the problems are addressed.

First let’s look at the problems we need to solve to make “git-archive” style tarballs usable:

Version Handling

To build usable binaries from a minimal tarballs, it need to know which version number it is. Traditionally this information was stored inside configure.ac in git. However I use gnulib’s git-version-gen to infer the version number from the git tag or git commit instead. The git tag information is not available in a git-archive tarball. My solution to this was to make use of the export-subst feature of the .gitattributes file. I store the file .tarball-version-git in git containing the magic cookie like this:

$Format:%(describe)$

With this, git-archive will replace with a useful version identifier on export, see the libtasn1 patch to achieve this. To make use of this information, the git-version-gen script was enhanced to read this information, see the gnulib patch. This is invoked by ./configure to figure out which version number the package is for.

Translations

We want translations to be included in the minimal source tarball for it to be buildable. Traditionally these files are retrieved by the maintainer from the Translation project when running ./bootstrap, however there are two problems with this. The first one is that there is no strong authentication or versioning information on this data, the tools just download and place whatever wget downloaded into your source tree (printf-style injection attack anyone?). We could improve this (e.g., publish GnuPG signed translations messages with clear versioning), however I did not work on that further. The reason is that I want to support offline builds of packages. Downloading random things from the Internet during builds does not work when building a Debian package, for example. The translation project could solve this by making a monthly tarball with their translations available, for distributors to pick up and provide as a separate package that could be used as a build dependency. However that is not how these tools and projects are designed. Instead I reverted back to storing translations in git, something that I did for most projects back when I was using CVS 20 years ago. Hooking this into ./bootstrap and gettext workflow can be tricky (ideas for improvement most welcome!), but I used a simple approach to store all directly downloaded po/*.po files directly as po/*.po.in and make the ./bootstrap tool move them in place, see the libidn2 commit followed by the actual ‘make update-po’ commit with all the translations where one essential step is:

# Prime po/*.po from fall-back copy stored in git.
for poin in po/*.po.in; do
    po=$(echo $poin | sed 's/.in//')
    test -f $po || cp -v $poin $po
done
ls po/*.po | sed 's|.*/||; s|\.po$||' > po/LINGUAS

Fetching vendor files like gnulib

Most build dependencies are in the shape of “You need a C compiler”. However some come in the shape of “source-code files intended to be vendored”, and gnulib is a huge repository of such files. The latter is a problem when building from a minimal git archive. It is possible to consider translation files as a class of vendor files, since they need to be copied verbatim into the project build directory for things to work. The same goes for *.m4 macros from the GNU Autoconf Archive. However I’m not confident that the solution for all vendor files must be the same. For translation files and for Autoconf Archive macros, I have decided to put these files into git and merge them manually occasionally. For gnulib files, in some projects like OATH Toolkit I also store all gnulib files in git which effectively resolve this concern. (Incidentally, the reason for doing so was originally that running ./bootstrap took forever since there is five gnulib instances used, which is no longer the case since gnulib-tool was rewritten in Python.) For most projects, however, I rely on ./bootstrap to fetch a gnulib git clone when building. I like this model, however it doesn’t work offline. One way to resolve this is to make the gnulib git repository available for offline use, and I’ve made some effort to make this happen via a Gnulib Git Bundle and have explained how to implement this approach for Debian packaging. I don’t think that is sufficient as a generic solution though, it is mostly applicable to building old releases that uses old gnulib files. It won’t work when building from CI/CD pipelines, for example, where I have settled to use a crude way of fetching and unpacking a particular gnulib snapshot, see this Libntlm patch. This is much faster than working with git submodules and cloning gnulib during ./bootstrap. Essentially this is doing:

GNULIB_REVISION=$(. bootstrap.conf >&2; echo $GNULIB_REVISION)
wget -nv https://gitlab.com/libidn/gnulib-mirror/-/archive/$GNULIB_REVISION/gnulib-mirror-$GNULIB_REVISION.tar.gz
gzip -cd gnulib-mirror-$GNULIB_REVISION.tar.gz | tar xf -
rm -fv gnulib-mirror-$GNULIB_REVISION.tar.gz
export GNULIB_SRCDIR=$PWD/gnulib-mirror-$GNULIB_REVISION
./bootstrap --no-git
./configure
make

Test the git-archive tarball

This goes without saying, but if you don’t test that building from a git-archive style tarball works, you are likely to regress at some point. Use CI/CD techniques to continuously test that a minimal git-archive tarball leads to a usable build.

Mission Accomplished

So that wasn’t hard, was it? You should now be able to publish a minimal git-archive tarball and users should be able to build your project from it.

I recommend naming these archives as PROJECT-vX.Y.Z-src.tar.gz replacing PROJECT with your project name and X.Y.Z with your version number. The archive should have only one sub-directory named PROJECT-vX.Y.Z/ containing all the source-code files. This differentiate it against traditional PROJECT-X.Y.Z.tar.gz tarballs in that it embeds the git tag (which typically starts with v) and contains a wildcard-friendly -src substring. Alas there is no consistency around this naming pattern, and GitLab, GitHub, Codeberg etc all seem to use their own slightly incompatible variant.

Let’s go on to see what is needed to achieve reproducible “make dist” source tarballs. This is the release artifact that most users use, and they often contain lots of generated files and vendor files. These files are included to make it easy to build for the user. What are the challenges to make these reproducible?

Build dependencies causing different generated content

The first part is to realize that if you use tool X with version A to generate a file that goes into the tarball, version B of that tool may produce different outputs. This is a generic concern and it cannot be solved. We want our build tools to evolve and produce better outputs over time. What can be addressed is to avoid needless differences. For example, many tools store timestamps and versioning information in the generated files. This causes needless differences, which makes audits harder. I have worked on some of these, like Autoconf Archive timestamps but solving all of these examples will take a long time, and some upstream are reluctant to incorporate these changes. My approach meanwhile is to build things using similar environments, and compare the outputs for differences. I’ve found that the various closely related forks of GNU/Linux distributions are useful for this. Trisquel 11 is based on Ubuntu 22.04, and building my projects using both and comparing the differences only give me the relevant differences to improve. This can be extended to compare AlmaLinux with RockyLinux (for both versions 8 and 9), Devuan 5 against Debian 12, PureOS 10 with Debian 11, and so on.

Timestamps

Sometimes tools store timestamps in files in a way that is harder to fix. Two notable examples of this are *.po translation files and Texinfo manuals. For translation files, I have resolved this by making sure the files use a predictable POT-Creation-Date timestamp, and I set it to the modification timestamps of the NEWS file in the repository (which I set to the git commit of the latest commit elsewhere) like this:

dist-hook: po-CreationDate-to-mtime-NEWS
.PHONY: po-CreationDate-to-mtime-NEWS
po-CreationDate-to-mtime-NEWS: mtime-NEWS-to-git-HEAD
  $(AM_V_GEN)for p in $(distdir)/po/*.po $(distdir)/po/$(PACKAGE).pot; do \
    if test -f "$$p"; then \
      $(SED) -e 's,POT-Creation-Date: .*\\n",POT-Creation-Date: '"$$(env LC_ALL=C TZ=UTC0 stat --format=%y $(srcdir)/NEWS | cut -c1-16,31-)"'\\n",' < $$p > $$p.tmp && \
      if cmp $$p $$p.tmp > /dev/null; then \
        rm -f $$p.tmp; \
      else \
        mv $$p.tmp $$p; \
      fi \
    fi \
  done

Similarily, I set a predictable modification time of the texinfo source file like this:

dist-hook: mtime-NEWS-to-git-HEAD
.PHONY: mtime-NEWS-to-git-HEAD
mtime-NEWS-to-git-HEAD:
  $(AM_V_GEN)if test -e $(srcdir)/.git \
                && command -v git > /dev/null; then \
    touch -m -t "$$(git log -1 --format=%cd \
      --date=format-local:%Y%m%d%H%M.%S)" $(srcdir)/NEWS; \
  fi

However I’ve realized that this needs to happen earlier and probably has to be run during ./configure time, because the doc/version.texi file is generated on first build before running ‘make dist‘ and for some reason the file is not rebuilt at release time. The Automake texinfo integration is a bit inflexible about providing hooks to extend the dependency tracking.

The method to address these differences isn’t really important, and they change over time depending on preferences. What is important is that the differences are eliminated.

ChangeLog

Traditionally ChangeLog files were manually prepared, and still is for some projects. I maintain git2cl but recently I’ve settled with gnulib’s gitlog-to-changelog because doing so avoids another build dependency (although the output formatting is different and arguable worse for my git commit style). So the ChangeLog files are generated from git history. This means a shallow clone will not produce the same ChangeLog file depending on how deep it was cloned. For Libntlm I simply disabled use of generated ChangeLog because I wanted to support an even more extreme form of reproducibility: I wanted to be able to reproduce the full “make dist” source archives from a minimal “git-archive” source archive. However for other projects I’ve settled with a middle ground. I realized that for ‘git describe‘ to produce reproducible outputs, the shallow clone needs to include the last release tag. So it felt acceptable to assume that the clone is not minimal, but instead has some but not all of the history. I settled with the following recipe to produce ChangeLog's covering all changes since the last release.

dist-hook: gen-ChangeLog
.PHONY: gen-ChangeLog
gen-ChangeLog:
  $(AM_V_GEN)if test -e $(srcdir)/.git; then			\
    LC_ALL=en_US.UTF-8 TZ=UTC0					\
    $(top_srcdir)/build-aux/gitlog-to-changelog			\
       --srcdir=$(srcdir) --					\
       v$(PREV_VERSION)~.. > $(distdir)/cl-t &&			\
       { printf '\n\nSee the source repo for older entries\n'	\
         >> $(distdir)/cl-t &&					\
         rm -f $(distdir)/ChangeLog &&				\
         mv $(distdir)/cl-t $(distdir)/ChangeLog; }		\
  fi

I’m undecided about the usefulness of generated ChangeLog files within ‘make dist‘ archives. Before we have stable and secure archival of git repositories widely implemented, I can see some utility of this in case we lose all copies of the upstream git repositories. I can sympathize with the concept of ChangeLog files died when we started to generate them from git logs: the files no longer serve any purpose, and we can ask people to go look at the git log instead of reading these generated non-source files.

Long-term reproducible trusted build environment

Distributions comes and goes, and old releases of them goes out of support and often stops working. Which build environment should I chose to build the official release archives? To my knowledge only Guix offers a reliable way to re-create an older build environment (guix gime-machine) that have bootstrappable properties for additional confidence. However I had two difficult problems here. The first one was that I needed Guix container images that were usable in GitLab CI/CD Pipelines, and this side-tracked me for a while. The second one delayed my effort for many months, and I was inclined to give up. Libidn distribute a C# implementation. Some of the C# source code files included in the release tarball are generated. By what? You guess it, by a C# program, with the source code included in the distribution. This means nobody could reproduce the source tarball of Libidn without trusting someone elses C# compiler binaries, which were built from binaries of earlier releases, chaining back into something that nobody ever attempts to build any more and likely fail to build due to bit-rot. I had two basic choices, either remove the C# implementation from Libidn (which may be a good idea for other reasons, since the C and C# are unrelated implementations) or build the source tarball on some binary-only distribution like Trisquel. Neither felt appealing to me, but a late christmas gift of a reproducible Mono came to Guix that resolve this.

Embedded images in Texinfo manual

For Libidn one section of the manual has an image illustrating some concepts. The PNG, PDF and EPS outputs were generated via fig2dev from a *.fig file (hello 1985!) that I had stored in git. Over time, I had also started to store the generated outputs because of build issues. At some point, it was possible to post-process the PDF outputs with grep to remove some timestamps, however with compression this is no longer possible and actually the grep command I used resulted in a 0-byte output file. So my embedded binaries in git was no longer reproducible. I first set out to fix this by post-processing things properly, however I then realized that the *.fig file is not really easy to work with in a modern world. I wanted to create an image from some text-file description of the image. Eventually, via the Guix manual on guix graph, I came to re-discover the graphviz language and tool called dot (hello 1993!). All well then? Oh no, the PDF output embeds timestamps. Binary editing of PDF’s no longer work through simple grep, remember? I was back where I started, and after some (soul- and web-) searching I discovered that Ghostscript (hello 1988!) pdfmarks could be used to modify things here. Cooperating with automake’s texinfo rules related to make dist proved once again a worthy challenge, and eventually I ended up with a Makefile.am snippet to build images that could be condensed into:

info_TEXINFOS = libidn.texi
libidn_TEXINFOS += libidn-components.png
imagesdir = $(infodir)
images_DATA = libidn-components.png
EXTRA_DIST += components.dot
DISTCLEANFILES = \
  libidn-components.eps libidn-components.png libidn-components.pdf
libidn-components.eps: $(srcdir)/components.dot
  $(AM_V_GEN)$(DOT) -Nfontsize=9 -Teps < $< > $@.tmp
  $(AM_V_at)! grep %%CreationDate $@.tmp
  $(AM_V_at)mv $@.tmp $@
libidn-components.pdf: $(srcdir)/components.dot
  $(AM_V_GEN)$(DOT) -Nfontsize=9 -Tpdf < $< > $@.tmp
# A simple sed on CreationDate is no longer possible due to compression.
# 'exiftool -CreateDate' is alternative to 'gs', but adds ~4kb to file.
# Ghostscript add <1kb.  Why can't 'dot' avoid setting CreationDate?
  $(AM_V_at)printf '[ /ModDate ()\n  /CreationDate ()\n  /DOCINFO pdfmark\n' > pdfmarks
  $(AM_V_at)$(GS) -q -dBATCH -dNOPAUSE -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -sOutputFile=$@.tmp2 $@.tmp pdfmarks
  $(AM_V_at)rm -f $@.tmp pdfmarks
  $(AM_V_at)mv $@.tmp2 $@
libidn-components.png: $(srcdir)/components.dot
  $(AM_V_GEN)$(DOT) -Nfontsize=9 -Tpng < $< > $@.tmp
  $(AM_V_at)mv $@.tmp $@
pdf-recursive: libidn-components.pdf
dvi-recursive: libidn-components.eps
ps-recursive: libidn-components.eps
info-recursive: $(top_srcdir)/.version libidn-components.png

Surely this can be improved, but I’m not yet certain in what way is the best one forward. I like having a text representation as the source of the image. I’m sad that the new image size is ~48kb compared to the old image size of ~1kb. I tried using exiftool -CreateDate as an alternative to GhostScript, but using it to remove the timestamp added ~4kb to the file size and naturally I was appalled by this ignorance of impending doom.

Test reproducibility of tarball

Again, you need to continuously test the properties you desire. This means building your project twice using different environments and comparing the results. I’ve settled with a small GitLab CI/CD pipeline job that perform bit-by-bit comparison of generated ‘make dist’ archives. It also perform bit-by-bit comparison of generated ‘git-archive’ artifacts. See the Libidn2 .gitlab-ci.yml 0-compare job which essentially is:

0-compare:
  image: alpine:latest
  stage: repro
  needs: [ B-AlmaLinux8, B-AlmaLinux9, B-RockyLinux8, B-RockyLinux9, B-Trisquel11, B-Ubuntu2204, B-PureOS10, B-Debian11, B-Devuan5, B-Debian12, B-gcc, B-clang, B-Guix, R-Guix, R-Debian12, R-Ubuntu2404, S-Trisquel10, S-Ubuntu2004 ]
  script:
  - cd out
  - sha256sum */*.tar.* */*/*.tar.* | sort | grep    -- -src.tar.
  - sha256sum */*.tar.* */*/*.tar.* | sort | grep -v -- -src.tar.
  - sha256sum */*.tar.* */*/*.tar.* | sort | uniq -c -w64 | sort -rn
  - sha256sum */*.tar.* */*/*.tar.* | grep    -- -src.tar. | sort | uniq -c -w64 | grep -v '^      1 '
  - sha256sum */*.tar.* */*/*.tar.* | grep -v -- -src.tar. | sort | uniq -c -w64 | grep -v '^      1 '
# Confirm modern git-archive tarball reproducibility
  - cmp b-almalinux8/src/*.tar.gz b-almalinux9/src/*.tar.gz
  - cmp b-almalinux8/src/*.tar.gz b-rockylinux8/src/*.tar.gz
  - cmp b-almalinux8/src/*.tar.gz b-rockylinux9/src/*.tar.gz
  - cmp b-almalinux8/src/*.tar.gz b-debian12/src/*.tar.gz
  - cmp b-almalinux8/src/*.tar.gz b-devuan5/src/*.tar.gz
  - cmp b-almalinux8/src/*.tar.gz r-guix/src/*.tar.gz
  - cmp b-almalinux8/src/*.tar.gz r-debian12/src/*.tar.gz
  - cmp b-almalinux8/src/*.tar.gz r-ubuntu2404/src/*v2.*.tar.gz
# Confirm old git-archive (export-subst but long git describe) tarball reproducibility
  - cmp b-trisquel11/src/*.tar.gz b-ubuntu2204/src/*.tar.gz
# Confirm really old git-archive (no export-subst) tarball reproducibility
  - cmp b-debian11/src/*.tar.gz b-pureos10/src/*.tar.gz
# Confirm 'make dist' generated tarball reproducibility
  - cmp b-almalinux8/*.tar.gz b-rockylinux8/*.tar.gz
  - cmp b-almalinux9/*.tar.gz b-rockylinux9/*.tar.gz
  - cmp b-pureos10/*.tar.gz b-debian11/*.tar.gz
  - cmp b-devuan5/*.tar.gz b-debian12/*.tar.gz
  - cmp b-trisquel11/*.tar.gz b-ubuntu2204/*.tar.gz
  - cmp b-guix/*.tar.gz r-guix/*.tar.gz
# Confirm 'make dist' from git-archive tarball reproducibility
  - cmp s-trisquel10/*.tar.gz s-ubuntu2004/*.tar.gz

Notice that I discovered that ‘git archive’ outputs differ over time too, which is natural but a bit of a nuisance. The output of the job is illuminating in the way that all SHA256 checksums of generated tarballs are included, for example the libidn2 v2.3.8 job log:

$ sha256sum */*.tar.* */*/*.tar.* | sort | grep -v -- -src.tar.
368488b6cc8697a0a937b9eb307a014396dd17d3feba3881e6911d549732a293  b-trisquel11/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
368488b6cc8697a0a937b9eb307a014396dd17d3feba3881e6911d549732a293  b-ubuntu2204/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
59db2d045fdc5639c98592d236403daa24d33d7c8db0986686b2a3056dfe0ded  b-debian11/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
59db2d045fdc5639c98592d236403daa24d33d7c8db0986686b2a3056dfe0ded  b-pureos10/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
5bd521d5ecd75f4b0ab0fc6d95d444944ef44a84cad859c9fb01363d3ce48bb8  s-trisquel10/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
5bd521d5ecd75f4b0ab0fc6d95d444944ef44a84cad859c9fb01363d3ce48bb8  s-ubuntu2004/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
7f1dcdea3772a34b7a9f22d6ae6361cdcbe5513e3b6485d40100b8565c9b961a  b-almalinux8/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
7f1dcdea3772a34b7a9f22d6ae6361cdcbe5513e3b6485d40100b8565c9b961a  b-rockylinux8/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
8031278157ce43b5813f36cf8dd6baf0d9a7f88324ced796765dcd5cd96ccc06  b-clang/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
8031278157ce43b5813f36cf8dd6baf0d9a7f88324ced796765dcd5cd96ccc06  b-debian12/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
8031278157ce43b5813f36cf8dd6baf0d9a7f88324ced796765dcd5cd96ccc06  b-devuan5/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
8031278157ce43b5813f36cf8dd6baf0d9a7f88324ced796765dcd5cd96ccc06  b-gcc/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
8031278157ce43b5813f36cf8dd6baf0d9a7f88324ced796765dcd5cd96ccc06  r-debian12/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
acf5cbb295e0693e4394a56c71600421059f9c9bf45ccf8a7e305c995630b32b  r-ubuntu2404/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
cbdb75c38100e9267670b916f41878b6dbc35f9c6cbe60d50f458b40df64fcf1  b-almalinux9/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
cbdb75c38100e9267670b916f41878b6dbc35f9c6cbe60d50f458b40df64fcf1  b-rockylinux9/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
f557911bf6171621e1f72ff35f5b1825bb35b52ed45325dcdee931e5d3c0787a  b-guix/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz
f557911bf6171621e1f72ff35f5b1825bb35b52ed45325dcdee931e5d3c0787a  r-guix/libidn2-2.3.8.tar.gz

I’m sure I have forgotten or suppressed some challenges (sprinkling LANG=C TZ=UTC0 helps) related to these goals, but my hope is that this discussion of solutions will inspire you to implement these concepts for your software project too. Please share your thoughts and additional insights in a comment below. Enjoy Happy Hacking in the course of practicing this!

Guix Container Images for GitLab CI/CD

Posted on by — 1 Comment ↓

I am using GitLab CI/CD pipelines for several upstream projects (libidn, libidn2, gsasl, inetutils, libtasn1, libntlm, …) and a long-time concern for these have been that there is too little testing on GNU Guix. Several attempts have been made, and earlier this year Ludo’ came really close to finish this. My earlier effort to idempotently rebuild Debian recently led me to think about re-bootstrapping Debian. Since Debian is a binary distribution, it re-use earlier binary packages when building new packages. The prospect of re-bootstrapping Debian in a reproducible way by rebuilding all of those packages going back to the beginning of time does not appeal to me. Instead, wouldn’t it be easier to build Debian trixie (or some future release of Debian) from Guix, by creating a small bootstrap sandbox that can start to build Debian packages, and then make sure that the particular Debian release can idempotently rebuild itself in a reproducible way? Then you will eventually end up with a reproducible and re-bootstrapped Debian, which pave the way for a trustworthy release of Trisquel. Fortunately, such an endeavour appears to offer many rabbit holes. Preparing Guix container images for use in GitLab pipelines is one that I jumped into in the last few days, and just came out of.

Let’s go directly to the point of this article: here is a GitLab pipeline job that runs in a native Guix container image that builds libksba after installing the libgpg-error dependency from Guix using the pre-built substitutes.

test-amd64-latest-wget-configure-make-libksba:
  image: registry.gitlab.com/debdistutils/guix/container:latest
  before_script:
  - lndir /gnu/store/*profile/etc/ /etc
  - rm -f /etc/group
  - groupadd --system guixbuild
  - for i in $(seq -w 1 10); do useradd -g guixbuild -G guixbuild -d /var/empty -s $(command -v nologin) -c "Guix build user $i" --system guixbuilder$i; done
  - export HOME=/
  - export LANG=C.UTF-8
  - guix-daemon --disable-chroot --build-users-group=guixbuild &
  - guix archive --authorize < /share/guix/ci.guix.gnu.org.pub
  - guix archive --authorize < /share/guix/bordeaux.guix.gnu.org.pub
  - guix describe
  - guix package -i libgpg-error
  - GUIX_PROFILE="//.guix-profile"
  - . "$GUIX_PROFILE/etc/profile"
  script:
  - wget https://www.gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/libksba/libksba-1.6.7.tar.bz2
  - tar xfa libksba-1.6.7.tar.bz2
  - cd libksba-1.6.7
  - ./configure
  - make V=1
  - make check VERBOSE=t V=1

You can put that in a .gitlab-ci.yml and push it to GitLab and you will end up with a nice pipeline job output.

As you may imagine, there are several things that are sub-optimal in the before_script above that ought to be taken care of by the Guix container image, and I hope to be able to remove as much of the ugliness as possible. However that doesn’t change that these images are useful now, and I wanted to announce this work to allow others to start testing them and possibly offer help. I have started to make use of these images in some projects, see for example the libntlm commit for that.

You are welcome to join me in the Guix container images for GitLab CI/CD project! Issues and merge requests are welcome – happy hacking folks!

Towards Idempotent Rebuilds?

Posted on by

After rebuilding all added/modified packages in Trisquel, I have been circling around the elephant in the room: 99% of the binary packages in Trisquel comes from Ubuntu, which to a large extent are built from Debian source packages. Is it possible to rebuild the official binary packages identically? Does anyone make an effort to do so? Does anyone care about going through the differences between the official package and a rebuilt version? Reproducible-build.org‘s effort to track reproducibility bugs in Debian (and other systems) is amazing. However as far as I know, they do not confirm or deny that their rebuilds match the official packages. In fact, typically their rebuilds do not match the official packages, even when they say the package is reproducible, which had me surprised at first. To understand why that happens, compare the buildinfo file for the official coreutils 9.1-1 from Debian bookworm with the buildinfo file for reproducible-build.org’s build and you will see that the SHA256 checksum does not match, but still they declare it as a reproducible package. As far as I can tell of the situation, the purpose of their rebuilds are not to say anything about the official binary build, instead the purpose is to offer a QA service to maintainers by performing two builds of a package and declaring success if both builds match.

I have felt that something is lacking, and months have passed and I haven’t found any project that address the problem I am interested in. During my earlier work I created a project called debdistreproduce which performs rebuilds of the difference between two distributions in a GitLab pipeline, and display diffoscope output for further analysis. A couple of days ago I had the idea of rewriting it to perform rebuilds of a single distribution. A new project debdistrebuild was born and today I’m happy to bless it as version 1.0 and to announces the project! Debdistrebuild has rebuilt the top-50 popcon packages from Debian bullseye, bookworm and trixie, on amd64 and arm64, as well as Ubuntu jammy and noble on amd64, see the summary status page for links. This is intended as a proof of concept, to allow people experiment with the concept of doing GitLab-based package rebuilds and analysis. Compare how Guix has the guix challenge command.

Or I should say debdistrebuild has attempted to rebuild those distributions. The number of identically built packages are fairly low, so I didn’t want to waste resources building the rest of the archive until I understand if the differences are due to consequences of my build environment (plain apt-get build-dep followed by dpkg-buildpackage in a fresh container), or due to some real difference. Summarizing the results, debdistrebuild is able to rebuild 34% of Debian bullseye on amd64, 36% of bookworm on amd64, 32% of bookworm on arm64. The results for trixie and Ubuntu are disappointing, below 10%.

So what causes my rebuilds to be different from the official rebuilds? Some are trivial like the classical problem of varying build paths, resulting in a different NT_GNU_BUILD_ID causing a mismatch. Some are a bit strange, like a subtle difference in one of perl’s headers file. Some are due to embedded version numbers from a build dependency. Several of the build logs and diffoscope outputs doesn’t make sense, likely due to bugs in my build scripts, especially for Ubuntu which appears to strip translations and do other build variations that I don’t do. In general, the classes of reproducibility problems are the expected. Some are assembler differences for GnuPG’s gpgv-static, likely triggered by upload of a new version of gcc after the original package was built. There are at least two ways to resolve that problem: either use the same version of build dependencies that were used to produce the original build, or demand that all packages that are affected by a change in another package are rebuilt centrally until there are no more differences.

The current design of debdistrebuild uses the latest version of a build dependency that is available in the distribution. We call this a “idempotent rebuild“. This is usually not how the binary packages were built originally, they are often built against earlier versions of their build dependency. That is the situation for most binary distributions.

Instead of using the latest build dependency version, higher reproducability may be achieved by rebuilding using the same version of the build dependencies that were used during the original build. This requires parsing buildinfo files to find the right version of the build dependency to install. We believe doing so will lead to a higher number of reproducibly built packages. However it begs the question: can we rebuild that earlier version of the build dependency? This circles back to really old versions and bootstrappable builds eventually.

While rebuilding old versions would be interesting on its own, we believe that is less helpful for trusting the latest version and improving a binary distribution: it is challenging to publish a new version of some old package that would fix a reproducibility bug in another package when used as a build dependency, and then rebuild the later packages with the modified earlier version. Those earlier packages were already published, and are part of history. It may be that ultimately it will no longer be possible to rebuild some package, because proper source code is missing (for packages using build dependencies that were never part of a release); hardware to build a package could be missing; or that the source code is no longer publicly distributable.

I argue that getting to 100% idempotent rebuilds is an interesting goal on its own, and to reach it we need to start measure idempotent rebuild status.

One could conceivable imagine a way to rebuild modified versions of earlier packages, and then rebuild later packages using the modified earlier packages as build dependencies, for the purpose of achieving higher level of reproducible rebuilds of the last version, and to reach for bootstrappability. However, it may be still be that this is insufficient to achieve idempotent rebuilds of the last versions. Idempotent rebuilds are different from a reproducible build (where we try to reproduce the build using the same inputs), and also to bootstrappable builds (in which all binaries are ultimately built from source code). Consider a cycle where package X influence the content of package Y, which in turn influence the content of package X. These cycles may involve several packages, and it is conceivable that a cycle could be circular and infinite. It may be difficult to identify these chains, and even more difficult to break them up, but this effort help identify where to start looking for them. Rebuilding packages using the same build dependency versions as were used during the original build, or rebuilding packages using a bootsrappable build process, both seem orthogonal to the idempotent rebuild problem.

Our notion of rebuildability appears thus to be complementary to reproducible-builds.org’s definition and bootstrappable.org’s definition. Each to their own devices, and Happy Hacking!

Addendum about terminology: With “idempotent rebuild” I am talking about a rebuild of the entire operating system, applied to itself. Compare how you build the latest version of the GNU C Compiler: it first builds itself using whatever system compiler is available (often an earlier version of gcc) which we call step 1. Then step 2 is to build a copy of itself using the compiler built in step 1. The final step 3 is to build another copy of itself using the compiler from step 2. Debian, Ubuntu etc are at step 1 in this process right now. The output of step 2 and step 3 ought to be bit-by-bit identical, or something is wrong. The comparison between step 2 and 3 is what I refer to with an idempotent rebuild. Of course, most packages aren’t a compiler that can compile itself. However entire operating systems such as Trisquel, PureOS, Ubuntu or Debian are (hopefully) a self-contained system that ought to be able to rebuild itself to an identical copy. Or something is amiss. The reproducible build and bootstrappable build projects are about improve the quality of step 1. The property I am interested is the identical rebuild and comparison in step 2 and 3. I feel the word “idempotent” describes the property I’m interested in well, but I realize there may be better ways to describe this. Ideas welcome!