written on Monday, July 29, 2019
A few years back I wrote down my thoughts on the problem of micropackages and trust scaling. In the meantime the problem has only gotten worse. Unfortunately my favorite programming language Rust is also starting to suffer from dependency explosion and how risky dependencies have become. Since I wrote about this last I have learned a few more things about this and I have some new ideas of how this could potentially be managed.
Our symbolicator project written in Rust currently has 303 unique dependencies. Some of these are duplicates due to different versions being used. For instance we depend on rand 0.4 , rand 0.5, rand 0.6 and rand 0.7 and there a few more cases like this. But even if we remove all of this we still have 280 unique package names involved.
Currently I'm in the situation that I can just pray that when I run cargo update the release is clean. There is no realistic way for me to audit this at all.
|||One thing of note here is that rand is a bit special in that some older rand versions will depend on newer ones so that they use the same internals. This is a trick that is also used by the libc library in Rust. For the purpose of the number of dependencies this optimization however does not help much.|
We use dependencies because they are useful in general. For instance symbolicator would not exist if it could not benefit from a huge number of code written by other people, a lot we contribute to. This means the entire community benefits from this. Rust probably some of the best DWARF and PDB libraries in existence now as a result of many different people contributing to the same cause. Those libraries in turn are sitting on top of very powerful binary reading and manipulation libraries which are a good thing not to be reinvented all over the place.
A quite heated discussion  on Twitter emerged the last few days about the danger and cost of dependencies among some Rust developers. One of the arguments that was brought up in support of dependencies was that software for non English speakers is mostly so terrible because people chose to reinvent the world instead of using third party libraries that handle things like localization and text input. I absolutely agree with this — some problems are just too large not to be put into a common dependency.
So clearly dependencies are something we do not want to get rid of. But we also need to live with the downsides they bring.
|||The thread on twitter with various different view points on this issue can be found here: https://twitter.com/pcwalton/status/1155881388106821632|
My current proposal to deal with this would be to establish a secondary system where auditors can be established that you can pin groups of packages against. Such an auditor would audit new releases of packages monitor primarily for just one property: that what's on Github is what's in the package that made it to the registry.
Here a practical example of how this could work: symbolicator currently has 18 tokio-* dependencies. Imagine all of these were audited by a "tokio auditor". An imaginary workflow could be something like having a registry of auditors and their packages stored on a registry (in this case crates.io). In addition to a lock file there would be an audit file (eg: Cargo.audit) which contains the list of all used auditors and for which packages they are used. Then whenever the dependency resolution algorithm runs it only accepts packages up to the latest audited version and it skips over versions that were never audited.
This could reduce the total amount of people one needs to trust tremendously. For instance all the tokio packages could be audited by one group. Now how is this different than the current de-facto world where all tokio packages are published by the same group of people anyways? The biggest difference immediately would be that that just because a package starts with tokio- does not mean it comes from the tokio developers. Additionally one does not have to trust just this group. For instance larger companies could run their own audits centrally for all packages that they use which can then be used across the organization.
What matters here is the user experience. Rust has an amazing packaging tool with cargo and what makes it so convenient are all the helpers around it. If we have an auditing tool where auditing our dependencies becomes an interactive process which gives us all the dependencies currently involved which are not audited, can link us to the release in github, show us the differences in the published cargo package compared to the source repository and more I would feel a lot less worried about the dependency count.
That however is only half the solution in my book. The second one is the cognitive overhead of all those micro-dependencies. They come with an extra problem which is that every one of them carries a license, even if they are only a single line. If you want to distribute code to an end user you need to ship all those licenses even though it's not quite sure if a function like left-pad even constitutes enough intellectual property to carry a license file.
I wonder if the better way to deal with those micro-dependencies is to call them out for what they are and add a separate category of these. It's quite uninformative to hear that one's application has 280 dependencies because that does not account for much if it each of these dependencies can be a single line or a hundred thousand line behemoth. If instead we would start breaking down our packages into categories at installation and audit time this could help us understand our codebases better.
Ideally the audit and installation/compilation process can tell us how many packages are leaf packages, how many are below a certain line count, how many use unsafe in their own codebase and tag them appropriately. This could give us a better understanding of what we're dealing with and how to deal with updates.
This is what worries me the most. We started to update dependencies because it's easy, not because it's a good idea. One should update dependencies but an update should have a cost.
For instance for micro-dependencies I really do not want to install updates ever. The chance that there is a security vulnerability in isArray that is fixed in an update is impossibly small. As such I would like to skip them entirely in updates unless a CVE is filed against it, in which case I probably want to be notified about it.
On the other hand large and very important direct dependencies in my system (like frameworks) I probably do want to update regularly. The thought process here is that skipping versions typically makes it harder to upgrade later and security fixes will only go into some of the newer versions. Staying on old versions for too long has clear disadvantages.
Understanding best practices for reviewing and updating might be interesting to analyze and could tell us write better tools to work with dependencies.
One of the things that might be interesting for toying around would be to make the dependency resolution process in package managers hook-able. For instance it would be very interesting if cargo or yarn could shell out to a configured tool which takes the resolved dependencies which are in the registry and can blacklist some. That way separate tools could be developed that try various approaches for auditing dependencies without those having to become part of the core package manager until the community has decided on best practices.
Theoretically one could do this entirely separately from the package manager by using third party tools to emit lock files but considering how the main build chain overrides lock files if the source dependencies change it might be too easy to get this wrong accidentally.
Such a hook for instance could already be used to automatically consult rustsec to blacklist package versions with security vulnerabilities.