Python cryptography, Rust, and Gentoo [LWN.net]

Python cryptography, Rust, and Gentoo

Posted Feb 12, 2021 22:12 UTC (Fri) by roc (subscriber, #30627)
In reply to: Python cryptography, Rust, and Gentoo by LtWorf
Parent article: Python cryptography, Rust, and Gentoo

Suppose we had a distro where all packages were built with Rust and statically linked the "png" crate, a CVE is issued for that crate, and a new minor version of "png" is available that fixes the bug. It would be very simple to scan all Cargo.lock files for all packages to see which ones are using a vulnerable version of "png". For each affected package, "cargo update -p png" would update to a non-vulnerable version. It would be easy to automate the entire process.

In this hypothetical distro you would also want to run 'cargo-deny' in CI to ensure that every time a package is built, the build fails if there is an outstanding CVE against one of its components.

The big picture here is that Rust+cargo standardize the build process and metadata to make managing dependencies much easier, more consistent and scalable.

(Of course we're ignoring the issue that you will have to do this much less frequently for a Rust PNG library because Rust code isn't prone to buffer overflows...)

to post comments

Python cryptography, Rust, and Gentoo

Posted Feb 16, 2021 2:14 UTC (Tue) by dvdeug (guest, #10998) [Link] (6 responses)

Let's compare that to what we have right now; we have a CVE in libpng, we upgrade the version of libpng in the distro, and fix all the packages without recompilation. That's already complex enough without literally recompiling almost every program on the system.

Python cryptography, Rust, and Gentoo

Posted Feb 16, 2021 2:55 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (3 responses)

And then some applications randomly break because of an ABI change.

Python cryptography, Rust, and Gentoo

Posted Feb 17, 2021 2:31 UTC (Wed) by dvdeug (guest, #10998) [Link] (2 responses)

Recompilation has been known to randomly break applications as well. The art of a good security patch is that it doesn't change anything besides making the security fix.

Python cryptography, Rust, and Gentoo

Posted Feb 17, 2021 4:59 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (1 responses)

> Recompilation has been known to randomly break applications as well.
Uhh.... Whut? Recompilation can't break applications, especially with repeatable builds. A bad fix that changes the API can certainly do that.

But it's way better than random breakages because the ABI has subtly changed.

Python cryptography, Rust, and Gentoo

Posted Feb 17, 2021 8:33 UTC (Wed) by geert (subscriber, #98403) [Link]

If the compilation is needed due to a change in a dependency, it is not a repeat of the previous build. If it was, there was no point in recompiling it.
If the compiler has changed, the recompiled application may behave differently, too.

Python cryptography, Rust, and Gentoo

Posted Feb 16, 2021 16:40 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (1 responses)

If we had the ability to cross-compile for slow target architectures, and proper build automation, recompiling everything that depends on libpng wouldn't need to be a problem.

Distributing the update to users might need some adjustments, too, in order to avoid massive bandwidth usage -- a good mechanism to send just binary deltas for the affected files would be more important than it is now.

Python cryptography, Rust, and Gentoo

Posted Feb 18, 2021 22:50 UTC (Thu) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]

It's a bit ironic that the software I *most* need cross-compilation for is the stuff most resistant to being cross-compiled…

(Bought more RAM than I thought I'd ever need. The compiler crashes because it runs out of i686 registers now. *sigh*)