This is part three of a series of blog posts on Pantry, a new storage and download system for Haskell packages. You can see part 1 and part 2.

What’s wrong with this stack.yaml file?

resolver: lts-12.0

Not sure? OK, try this:

resolver: lts-12.0
extra-deps:
- acme-missiles-0.3

Well, that one is a bit easier to point out: we haven’t pinned down which revision of the cabal file we should use for acme-missiles-0.3. As it stands, our build plan is not reproducible. At some point in the future, the cabal file could be revised, and we’ll get a different plan. Fixing that is fairly easy:

resolver: lts-12.0
extra-deps:
- acme-missiles-0.3@rev:0

The @rev:0 pins us down to a specific revision. However, we still have a problem. Let’s analyze how this stack.yaml file is treated by Stack.

Resolving acme-missiles

Stack is going to need to get both the acme-missiles-0.3.tar.gz sdist tarball, and the acme-missiles.cabal file at revision one. In order to do both of these steps, Stack will:

  1. Use hackage-security to download the 01-index.tar file and validate the download using the Hackage public keys. These keys are hard-coded into Stack, or can be overridden via configuration.
  2. Find the acme-missiles/0.3/package.json file to get the SHA256 and filesize of the acme-missiles-0.3.tar.gz file.
  3. Find the first file in the 01-index.tar file with a file path acme-missiles/0.3/acme-missiles.cabal, which corresponds to the the @rev:0 bit.

All well and good. The Hackage Security layer prevents a malicious man-in-the-middle attack, as well as other attacks. However, it doesn’t prevent some other possibilities:

Just to be clear: this isn’t specific to Hackage. Consider the following Stack configuration:

resolver: lts-12.0
extra-deps:
- https://example.com/my-file.tar.gz

Who’s to say that my-file.tar.gz isn’t changed at some point, even if I control that domain name? Stack has no way of guaranteeing such stability with the provided information.

Already today, Stack provides a more reliable way to specify the cabal file revision:

resolver: lts-12.0
extra-deps:
- acme-missiles-0.3@sha256:2ba66a092a32593880a87fb00f3213762d7bca65a687d45965778deb8694c5d1,613

However, we still rely on Hackage metadata for ensuring the sdist tarball is unmodified. Why not just double down on the hashing approach? With Pantry, we do just that! As an example (I’ll share the source a bit later):

- hackage: ALUT-2.4.0.2@sha256:6fbceae566b3d63118c67db71645f48ba22b195c58328863d274a76fba086fc1,3895
  pantry-tree:
    size: 2402
    sha256: 8985dfc0fe299d313690cd4db86c511340f805df5e6d3fab79c15d36ac5d8c71

We’ve already discussed trees. In this case, that 8985dfc… hash is a hash of the binary representation of the tree, and that binary representation is of size 2,402 bytes. Anyone following the same Pantry algorithm who downloads the same ALUT-2.4.0.2.tar.gz file with the same cabal file revision will end up with that same hash and file size. Any Pantry caching server (which we still haven’t spoken about!) will be able to serve up that information.

“You really expect me to enter all of that information each time I add a dependency?” you may ask. The answer is: no, of course not. That would be sadistic. Keep reading.

Resolving resolvers

The story with figuring out what lts-12.0 is much the same. Stack parses that string and realizes it’s looking for an LTS snapshot, major version 12, minor version 0, and goes to the appropriate URL, downloads the contents, saves them locally… and hopes they never change at any point in the future.

I run that repo. I promise, unless there’s a major bug to be fixed (like incorrect hashes), I don’t intend to modify those files. They should be reproducible. But you shouldn’t trust me. Seriously, assume I’m trying to break your project: it’s the right mindset for thinking through reproducible builds.

Tomorrow, I could upload a new version of conduit with a back door in it, modify the lts-12.0.yaml file to use it, and the next time you run stack build with a non-cached download, you’ll get my bug. The original time you built and tested, everything would have worked just fine. But now you’re wide open for an attack.

I probably sound like a broken record by now, but I think you can guess where this is headed. That’s right: hash the snapshot files too! Instead of resolver: lts-12.0, you’ll have something like the following (exact syntax still in flux):

resolver:
  url: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/commercialhaskell/stackage-snapshots/master/lts/12/0.yaml
  sha256: a55695a7236e46740e369d778d83e44475ed4f1c80783071835dae43658bada6
  size: 500006

You may have noticed that this is using a different repo than previously. That’s because the Stackage snapshot file format is changing with the new Pantry-based Stack to be the same as the existing custom snapshot format. I’ve just completed converting all of the LTS Haskell and Stackage Nightly snapshots over, feel free to take a look if you’re interested. Bonus: these files are much smaller by eliminating a bunch of extraneous information, which we’ll keep separate from the snapshtos themselves.

Are you sadistic?

So back to that point: who in their right mind wants to right down this kind of information? Obviously nobody. But this is exactly the kind of thing tools are really good at writing instead! Here’s my planned execution:

And here’s the mental model. You will end up being vulnerable to bad content from upstream when you initially say lts-12.0. But when you initially choose any upstream snapshots or packages, you’re vulnerable to them containing incorrect or malicious code. It’s your responsibility to ensure you’re getting something you can trust, and no tool can fix that for you.

But once you’ve vetted those files, you want your tool to ensure that those files are never changed out from under you. Initially specifying the simple format (e.g., lts-12.0), testing your configuration, and then adding in the hashes, achieves this goal. And fortunately, our tooling can make this (relatively) painless.

What’s next?

I still haven’t implemented the freeze command, so that’s on the horizon. There are also still lots of pieces of unimplemented code in the pantry branch. But most likely I’m going to take a break from the Stack work itself soon, and start working on a new Stackage curator tool that works with Pantry, and makes it much easier for others to test their own snapshots. It will also make it easier to create snapshots with packages outside of Hackage for easier testing of proposed code changes. Stay tuned!

Subscribe to our blog via email
Email subscriptions come from our Atom feed and are handled by Blogtrottr. You will only receive notifications of blog posts, and can unsubscribe any time.

Do you like this blog post and need help with Next Generation Software Engineering, Platform Engineering or Blockchain & Smart Contracts? Contact us.