Modern web applications are much more complicated than the simple Perl CGI scripts or PHP pages of the past. They usually start with a framework and include lots of external components both on the front-end and on the back-end.
Here's an example from the Node.js back-end of a real application:
$ npm list | wc -l 256
What if one of these 256 external components has a security vulnerability? How would you know and what would you do if of your direct dependencies had a hard-coded dependency on the vulnerable version? It's a real problem and of course one way to avoid this is to write everything yourself. But that's neither realistic nor desirable.
However, it's not a new problem. It was solved years ago by Linux distributions for C and C++ applications. For some reason though, this learning has not propagated to the web where the standard approach seems to be to "statically link everything".
What if we could build on the work done by Debian maintainers and the security team?
Case study - the Libravatar project
As a way of discussing a different approach to the problem of dependency management in web applications, let me describe the decisions made by the Libravatar project.
Libravatar is a federated and free software alternative to the Gravatar profile photo hosting site.
From a developer point of view, it's a fairly simple stack:
The service is split between the master node, where you create an account and upload your avatar, and a few mirrors, which serve the photos to third-party sites.
Like with Gravatar, sites wanting to display images don't have to worry about a complicated protocol. In a nutshell, all that a site needs to do is hash the user's email and add that hash to a base URL. Where the federation kicks in is that every email domain is able to specify a different base URL via an SRV record in DNS.
email@example.com hashes to
7cc352a2907216992f0f16d2af50b070 and so the full URL is:
firstname.lastname@example.org hashes to
0110e86fdb31486c22dd381326d99de9 and the full URL is:
due to the presence of an SRV record on
The main rules that the project follows is to:
- only use Python libraries that are in Debian
- use the versions present in the latest stable release (including backports)
Deployment using packages
In addition to these rules around dependencies, we decided to treat the application as if it were going to be uploaded to Debian:
- The Makefile includes a
testtarget which runs the unit tests and some lint checks (pylint, pyflakes and pep8).
- Debian packages are produced to encode the dependencies in the standard way as well as to run various setup commands in maintainer scripts and install cron jobs.
- The project runs its own package repository using reprepro to easily distribute these custom packages.
- In order to update the repository and the packages installed on servers that we control, we use fabric, which is basically a fancy way to run commands over ssh.
- Mirrors can simply add our
repository to their apt
sources.listand upgrade Libravatar packages at the same time as their system packages.
Overall, this approach has been quite successful and Libravatar has been a very low-maintenance service to run.
The ground rules have however limited our choice of libraries. For example, to talk to our queuing system, we had to use the raw Python bindings to the C Gearman library instead of being able to use a nice pythonic library which wasn't in Debian squeeze at the time.
There is of course always the possibility of packaging a missing library for Debian and maintaining a backport of it until the next Debian release. This wouldn't be a lot of work considering the fact that responsible bundling of a library would normally force you to follow its releases closely and keep any dependencies up to date, so you may as well share the result of that effort. But in the end, it turns out that there is a lot of Python stuff already in Debian and we haven't had to package anything new yet.
Another thing that was somewhat scary, due to the number of packages that were going to get bumped to a new major version, was the upgrade from squeeze to wheezy. It turned out however that it was surprisingly easy to upgrade to wheezy's version of Django, Apache and Postgres. It may be a problem next time, but all that means is that you have to set a day aside every 2 years to bring everything up to date.
The main problem we ran into is that we optimized for sysadmins and unfortunately made it harder for new developers to setup their environment. That's not very good from the point of view of welcoming new contributors as there is quite a bit of friction in preparing and testing your first patch. That's why we're looking at encoding our setup instructions into a Vagrant script so that new contributors can get started quickly.
One thing worth noting is that while the Django project is very good at issuing backwards-compatible fixes for security issues, sometimes there is no way around disabling broken features. In practice, this means that we cannot run unattended-upgrades on our main server in case something breaks. Instead, we make use of apticron to automatically receive email reminders for any outstanding package updates.
On that topic, it can occasionally take a while for security updates to be released in Debian, but this usually falls into one of two cases:
- You either notice because you're already tracking releases pretty well and therefore could help Debian with backporting of fixes and/or testing;
- or you don't notice because it has slipped through the cracks or there simply are too many potential things to keep track of, in which case the fact that it eventually gets fixed without your intervention is a huge improvement.
Finally, relying too much on Debian packaging does prevent Fedora users (a project that also makes use of Libravatar) from easily contributing mirrors. Though if we had a concrete offer, we would certainly look into creating the appropriate RPMs.
Is it realistic?
It turns out that I'm not the only one who thought about this approach, which has been named "debops". The same day that my talk was announced on the DebConf website, someone emailed me saying that he had instituted the exact same rules at his company, which operates a large Django-based web application in the US and Russia. It was pretty impressive to read about a real business coming to the same conclusions and using the same approach (i.e. system libraries, deployment packages) as Libravatar.
Regardless of this though, I think there is a class of applications that are particularly well-suited for the approach we've just described. If a web application is not your full-time job and you want to minimize the amount of work required to keep it running, then it's a good investment to restrict your options and leverage the work of the Debian community to simplify your maintenance burden.
The second criterion I would look at is framework maturity. Given the 2-3 year release cycle of stable distributions, this approach is more likely to work with a mature framework like Django. After all, you probably wouldn't compile Apache from source, but until recently building Node.js from source was the preferred option as it was changing so quickly.
While it goes against conventional wisdom, relying on system libraries is a sustainable approach you should at least consider in your next project. After all, there is a real cost in bundling and keeping up with external dependencies.