Tag Archives: reproducible

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.

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!

Reproducible and minimal source-only tarballs

Posted on by

With the release of Libntlm version 1.8 the release tarball can be reproduced on several distributions. We also publish a signed minimal source-only tarball, produced by git-archive which is the same format used by Savannah, Codeberg, GitLab, GitHub and others. Reproducibility of both tarballs are tested continuously for regressions on GitLab through a CI/CD pipeline. If that wasn’t enough to excite you, the Debian packages of Libntlm are now built from the reproducible minimal source-only tarball. The resulting binaries are reproducible on several architectures.

What does that even mean? Why should you care? How you can do the same for your project? What are the open issues? Read on, dear reader…

This article describes my practical experiments with reproducible release artifacts, following up on my earlier thoughts that lead to discussion on Fosstodon and a patch by Janneke Nieuwenhuizen to make Guix tarballs reproducible that inspired me to some practical work.

Let’s look at how a maintainer release some software, and how a user can reproduce the released artifacts from the source code. Libntlm provides a shared library written in C and uses GNU Make, GNU Autoconf, GNU Automake, GNU Libtool and gnulib for build management, but these ideas should apply to most project and build system. The following illustrate the steps a maintainer would take to prepare a release:

git clone https://gitlab.com/gsasl/libntlm.git
cd libntlm
git checkout v1.8
./bootstrap
./configure
make distcheck
gpg -b libntlm-1.8.tar.gz

The generated files libntlm-1.8.tar.gz and libntlm-1.8.tar.gz.sig are published, and users download and use them. This is how the GNU project have been doing releases since the late 1980’s. That is a testament to how successful this pattern has been! These tarballs contain source code and some generated files, typically shell scripts generated by autoconf, makefile templates generated by automake, documentation in formats like Info, HTML, or PDF. Rarely do they contain binary object code, but historically that happened.

The XZUtils incident illustrate that tarballs with files that are not included in the git archive offer an opportunity to disguise malicious backdoors. I blogged earlier how to mitigate this risk by using signed minimal source-only tarballs.

The risk of hiding malware is not the only motivation to publish signed minimal source-only tarballs. With pre-generated content in tarballs, there is a risk that GNU/Linux distributions such as Trisquel, Guix, Debian/Ubuntu or Fedora ship generated files coming from the tarball into the binary *.deb or *.rpm package file. Typically the person packaging the upstream project never realized that some installed artifacts was not re-built through a typical autoconf -fi && ./configure && make install sequence, and never wrote the code to rebuild everything. This can also happen if the build rules are written but are buggy, shipping the old artifact. When a security problem is found, this can lead to time-consuming situations, as it may be that patching the relevant source code and rebuilding the package is not sufficient: the vulnerable generated object from the tarball would be shipped into the binary package instead of a rebuilt artifact. For architecture-specific binaries this rarely happens, since object code is usually not included in tarballs — although for 10+ years I shipped the binary Java JAR file in the GNU Libidn release tarball, until I stopped shipping it. For interpreted languages and especially for generated content such as HTML, PDF, shell scripts this happens more than you would like.

Publishing minimal source-only tarballs enable easier auditing of a project’s code, to avoid the need to read through all generated files looking for malicious content. I have taken care to generate the source-only minimal tarball using git-archive. This is the same format that GitLab, GitHub etc offer for the automated download links on git tags. The minimal source-only tarballs can thus serve as a way to audit GitLab and GitHub download material! Consider if/when hosting sites like GitLab or GitHub has a security incident that cause generated tarballs to include a backdoor that is not present in the git repository. If people rely on the tag download artifact without verifying the maintainer PGP signature using GnuPG, this can lead to similar backdoor scenarios that we had for XZUtils but originated with the hosting provider instead of the release manager. This is even more concerning, since this attack can be mounted for some selected IP address that you want to target and not on everyone, thereby making it harder to discover.

With all that discussion and rationale out of the way, let’s return to the release process. I have added another step here:

make srcdist
gpg -b libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz

Now the release is ready. I publish these four files in the Libntlm’s Savannah Download area, but they can be uploaded to a GitLab/GitHub release area as well. These are the SHA256 checksums I got after building the tarballs on my Trisquel 11 aramo laptop:

91de864224913b9493c7a6cec2890e6eded3610d34c3d983132823de348ec2ca  libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz
ce6569a47a21173ba69c990965f73eb82d9a093eb871f935ab64ee13df47fda1  libntlm-1.8.tar.gz

So how can you reproduce my artifacts? Here is how to reproduce them in a Ubuntu 22.04 container:

podman run -it --rm ubuntu:22.04
apt-get update
apt-get install -y --no-install-recommends autoconf automake libtool make git ca-certificates
git clone https://gitlab.com/gsasl/libntlm.git
cd libntlm
git checkout v1.8
./bootstrap
./configure
make dist srcdist
sha256sum libntlm-*.tar.gz

You should see the exact same SHA256 checksum values. Hooray!

This works because Trisquel 11 and Ubuntu 22.04 uses the same version of git, autoconf, automake, and libtool. These tools do not guarantee the same output content for all versions, similar to how GNU GCC does not generate the same binary output for all versions. So there is still some delicate version pairing needed.

Ideally, the artifacts should be possible to reproduce from the release artifacts themselves, and not only directly from git. It is possible to reproduce the full tarball in a AlmaLinux 8 container – replace almalinux:8 with rockylinux:8 if you prefer RockyLinux:

podman run -it --rm almalinux:8
dnf update -y
dnf install -y make wget gcc
wget https://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/libntlm/libntlm-1.8.tar.gz
tar xfa libntlm-1.8.tar.gz
cd libntlm-1.8
./configure
make dist
sha256sum libntlm-1.8.tar.gz

The source-only minimal tarball can be regenerated on Debian 11:

podman run -it --rm debian:11
apt-get update
apt-get install -y --no-install-recommends make git ca-certificates
git clone https://gitlab.com/gsasl/libntlm.git
cd libntlm
git checkout v1.8
make -f cfg.mk srcdist
sha256sum libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz

As the Magnus Opus or chef-d’œuvre, let’s recreate the full tarball directly from the minimal source-only tarball on Trisquel 11 – replace docker.io/kpengboy/trisquel:11.0 with ubuntu:22.04 if you prefer.

podman run -it --rm docker.io/kpengboy/trisquel:11.0
apt-get update
apt-get install -y --no-install-recommends autoconf automake libtool make wget git ca-certificates
wget https://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/libntlm/libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz
tar xfa libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz
cd libntlm-v1.8
./bootstrap
./configure
make dist
sha256sum libntlm-1.8.tar.gz

Yay! You should now have great confidence in that the release artifacts correspond to what’s in version control and also to what the maintainer intended to release. Your remaining job is to audit the source code for vulnerabilities, including the source code of the dependencies used in the build. You no longer have to worry about auditing the release artifacts.

I find it somewhat amusing that the build infrastructure for Libntlm is now in a significantly better place than the code itself. Libntlm is written in old C style with plenty of string manipulation and uses broken cryptographic algorithms such as MD4 and single-DES. Remember folks: solving supply chain security issues has no bearing on what kind of code you eventually run. A clean gun can still shoot you in the foot.

Side note on naming: GitLab exports tarballs with pathnames libntlm-v1.8/ (i.e.., PROJECT-TAG/) and I’ve adopted the same pathnames, which means my libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz tarballs are bit-by-bit identical to GitLab’s exports and you can verify this with tools like diffoscope. GitLab name the tarball libntlm-v1.8.tar.gz (i.e., PROJECT-TAG.ARCHIVE) which I find too similar to the libntlm-1.8.tar.gz that we also publish. GitHub uses the same git archive style, but unfortunately they have logic that removes the ‘v’ in the pathname so you will get a tarball with pathname libntlm-1.8/ instead of libntlm-v1.8/ that GitLab and I use. The content of the tarball is bit-by-bit identical, but the pathname and archive differs. Codeberg (running Forgejo) uses another approach: the tarball is called libntlm-v1.8.tar.gz (after the tag) just like GitLab, but the pathname inside the archive is libntlm/, otherwise the produced archive is bit-by-bit identical including timestamps. Savannah’s CGIT interface uses archive name libntlm-1.8.tar.gz with pathname libntlm-1.8/, but otherwise file content is identical. Savannah’s GitWeb interface provides snapshot links that are named after the git commit (e.g., libntlm-a812c2ca.tar.gz with libntlm-a812c2ca/) and I cannot find any tag-based download links at all. Overall, we are so close to get SHA256 checksum to match, but fail on pathname within the archive. I’ve chosen to be compatible with GitLab regarding the content of tarballs but not on archive naming. From a simplicity point of view, it would be nice if everyone used PROJECT-TAG.ARCHIVE for the archive filename and PROJECT-TAG/ for the pathname within the archive. This aspect will probably need more discussion.

Side note on git archive output: It seems different versions of git archive produce different results for the same repository. The version of git in Debian 11, Trisquel 11 and Ubuntu 22.04 behave the same. The version of git in Debian 12, AlmaLinux/RockyLinux 8/9, Alpine, ArchLinux, macOS homebrew, and upcoming Ubuntu 24.04 behave in another way. Hopefully this will not change that often, but this would invalidate reproducibility of these tarballs in the future, forcing you to use an old git release to reproduce the source-only tarball. Alas, GitLab and most other sites appears to be using modern git so the download tarballs from them would not match my tarballs – even though the content would.

Side note on ChangeLog: ChangeLog files were traditionally manually curated files with version history for a package. In recent years, several projects moved to dynamically generate them from git history (using tools like git2cl or gitlog-to-changelog). This has consequences for reproducibility of tarballs: you need to have the entire git history available! The gitlog-to-changelog tool also output different outputs depending on the time zone of the person using it, which arguable is a simple bug that can be fixed. However this entire approach is incompatible with rebuilding the full tarball from the minimal source-only tarball. It seems Libntlm’s ChangeLog file died on the surgery table here.

So how would a distribution build these minimal source-only tarballs? I happen to help on the libntlm package in Debian. It has historically used the generated tarballs as the source code to build from. This means that code coming from gnulib is vendored in the tarball. When a security problem is discovered in gnulib code, the security team needs to patch all packages that include that vendored code and rebuild them, instead of merely patching the gnulib package and rebuild all packages that rely on that particular code. To change this, the Debian libntlm package needs to Build-Depends on Debian’s gnulib package. But there was one problem: similar to most projects that use gnulib, Libntlm depend on a particular git commit of gnulib, and Debian only ship one commit. There is no coordination about which commit to use. I have adopted gnulib in Debian, and add a git bundle to the *_all.deb binary package so that projects that rely on gnulib can pick whatever commit they need. This allow an no-network GNULIB_URL and GNULIB_REVISION approach when running Libntlm’s ./bootstrap with the Debian gnulib package installed. Otherwise libntlm would pick up whatever latest version of gnulib that Debian happened to have in the gnulib package, which is not what the Libntlm maintainer intended to be used, and can lead to all sorts of version mismatches (and consequently security problems) over time. Libntlm in Debian is developed and tested on Salsa and there is continuous integration testing of it as well, thanks to the Salsa CI team.

Side note on git bundles: unfortunately there appears to be no reproducible way to export a git repository into one or more files. So one unfortunate consequence of all this work is that the gnulib *.orig.tar.gz tarball in Debian is not reproducible any more. I have tried to get Git bundles to be reproducible but I never got it to work — see my notes in gnulib’s debian/README.source on this aspect. Of course, source tarball reproducibility has nothing to do with binary reproducibility of gnulib in Debian itself, fortunately.

One open question is how to deal with the increased build dependencies that is triggered by this approach. Some people are surprised by this but I don’t see how to get around it: if you depend on source code for tools in another package to build your package, it is a bad idea to hide that dependency. We’ve done it for a long time through vendored code in non-minimal tarballs. Libntlm isn’t the most critical project from a bootstrapping perspective, so adding git and gnulib as Build-Depends to it will probably be fine. However, consider if this pattern was used for other packages that uses gnulib such as coreutils, gzip, tar, bison etc (all are using gnulib) then they would all Build-Depends on git and gnulib. Cross-building those packages for a new architecture will therefor require git on that architecture first, which gets circular quick. The dependency on gnulib is real so I don’t see that going away, and gnulib is a Architecture:all package. However, the dependency on git is merely a consequence of how the Debian gnulib package chose to make all gnulib git commits available to projects: through a git bundle. There are other ways to do this that doesn’t require the git tool to extract the necessary files, but none that I found practical — ideas welcome!

Finally some brief notes on how this was implemented. Enabling bootstrappable source-only minimal tarballs via gnulib’s ./bootstrap is achieved by using the GNULIB_REVISION mechanism, locking down the gnulib commit used. I have always disliked git submodules because they add extra steps and has complicated interaction with CI/CD. The reason why I gave up git submodules now is because the particular commit to use is not recorded in the git archive output when git submodules is used. So the particular gnulib commit has to be mentioned explicitly in some source code that goes into the git archive tarball. Colin Watson added the GNULIB_REVISION approach to ./bootstrap back in 2018, and now it no longer made sense to continue to use a gnulib git submodule. One alternative is to use ./bootstrap with --gnulib-srcdir or --gnulib-refdir if there is some practical problem with the GNULIB_URL towards a git bundle the GNULIB_REVISION in bootstrap.conf.

The srcdist make rule is simple:

git archive --prefix=libntlm-v1.8/ -o libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz HEAD

Making the make dist generated tarball reproducible can be more complicated, however for Libntlm it was sufficient to make sure the modification times of all files were set deterministically to the timestamp of the last commit in the git repository. Interestingly there seems to be a couple of different ways to accomplish this, Guix doesn’t support minimal source-only tarballs but rely on a .tarball-timestamp file inside the tarball. Paul Eggert explained what TZDB is using some time ago. The approach I’m using now is fairly similar to the one I suggested over a year ago. If there are problems because all files in the tarball now use the same modification time, there is a solution by Bruno Haible that could be implemented.

Side note on git tags: Some people may wonder why not verify a signed git tag instead of verifying a signed tarball of the git archive. Currently most git repositories uses SHA-1 for git commit identities, but SHA-1 is not a secure hash function. While current SHA-1 attacks can be detected and mitigated, there are fundamental doubts that a git SHA-1 commit identity uniquely refers to the same content that was intended. Verifying a git tag will never offer the same assurance, since a git tag can be moved or re-signed at any time. Verifying a git commit is better but then we need to trust SHA-1. Migrating git to SHA-256 would resolve this aspect, but most hosting sites such as GitLab and GitHub does not support this yet. There are other advantages to using signed tarballs instead of signed git commits or git tags as well, e.g., tar.gz can be a deterministically reproducible persistent stable offline storage format but .git sub-directory trees or git bundles do not offer this property.

Doing continous testing of all this is critical to make sure things don’t regress. Libntlm’s pipeline definition now produce the generated libntlm-*.tar.gz tarballs and a checksum as a build artifact. Then I added the 000-reproducability job which compares the checksums and fails on mismatches. You can read its delicate output in the job for the v1.8 release. Right now we insists that builds on Trisquel 11 match Ubuntu 22.04, that PureOS 10 builds match Debian 11 builds, that AlmaLinux 8 builds match RockyLinux 8 builds, and AlmaLinux 9 builds match RockyLinux 9 builds. As you can see in pipeline job output, not all platforms lead to the same tarballs, but hopefully this state can be improved over time. There is also partial reproducibility, where the full tarball is reproducible across two distributions but not the minimal tarball, or vice versa.

If this way of working plays out well, I hope to implement it in other projects too.

What do you think? Happy Hacking!

More on Differential Reproducible Builds: Devuan is 46% reproducible!

Posted on by

Building on my work to rebuild Trisquel GNU/Linux 11.0 aramo, it felt simple to generalize the tooling to any two apt-repository pairs and I’ve created debdistreproduce as a template-project for doing this through the infrastructure of GitLab CI/CD and meanwhile even set up my own gitlab-runner on spare hardware. I’ve brought over reproduce/trisquel to using debdistreproduce as well, and archived the old reproduce-trisquel project.

After fixing some quirks, building Devuan GNU+Linux 4.0 Chimaera was fairly quick since they do not modify that many packages, and I’m now able to reproduce 46% of the packages that Devuan Chimaera add/modify on amd64. I have more work in progress here (hint: reproduce/pureos), but PureOS is considerably larger than both Trisquel and Devuan together. I’m not sure how interested Devuan or PureOS are in reproducible builds though.

Reflecting on this work made me realize that while the natural thing to do here was to differentiate two different apt-based distributions, I have realized the same way I did for debdistdiff that it would also be interesting to compare, say, Debian bookworm from Debian unstable, especially now that they should be fairly close together. My tooling should support that too. However, to really provide any benefit from the more complete existing reproducible testing of Debian, some further benefit from doing that would be useful and I can’t articulate one right now.

One ultimate goal with my effort is to improve trust in apt-repositories, and combining transparency-style protection a’la apt-sigstore with third-party validated reproducible builds may indeed be one such use-case that would benefit the wider community of apt-repositories. Imagine having your system not install any package unless it can verify it against a third-party reproducible build organization that commits their results in a tamper-proof transparency ledger. But I’m now on repeat here, so will stop.