February 6, 2024
Flathub: Pros and Cons of Direct Uploads
I attended FOSDEM last weekend and had the pleasure to participate in the Flathub / Flatpak BOF on Saturday. A lot of the session was used up by an extensive discussion about the merits (or not) of allowing direct uploads versus building everything centrally on Flathub’s infrastructure, and related concerns such as automated security/dependency scanning.
My original motivation behind the idea was essentially two things. The first was to offer a simpler way forward for applications that use language-specific build tools that resolve and retrieve their own dependencies from the internet. Flathub doesn’t allow network access during builds, and so a lot of manual work and additional tooling is currently needed (see Python and Electron Flatpak guides). And the second was to offer a maybe more familiar flow to developers from other platforms who would just build something and then run another command to upload it to the store, without having to learn the syntax of a new build tool. There were many valid concerns raised in the room, and I think on reflection that this is still worth doing, but might not be as valuable a way forward for Flathub as I had initially hoped.
Of course, for a proprietary application where Flathub never sees the source or where it’s built, whether that binary is uploaded to us or downloaded by us doesn’t change much. But for an FLOSS application, a direct upload driven by the developer causes a regression on a number of fronts. We’re not getting too hung up on the “malicious developer inserts evil code in the binary” case because Flathub already works on the model of verifying the developer and the user makes a decision to trust that app – we don’t review the source after all. But we do lose other things such as our infrastructure building on multiple architectures, and visibility on whether the build environment or upload credentials have been compromised unbeknownst to the developer.
There is now a manual review process for when apps change their metadata such as name, icon, license and permissions – which would apply to any direct uploads as well. It was suggested that if only heavily sandboxed apps (eg no direct filesystem access without proper use of portals) were permitted to make direct uploads, the impact of such concerns might be somewhat mitigated by the sandboxing.
However, it was also pointed out that my go-to example of “Electron app developers can upload to Flathub with one command” was also a bit of a fiction. At present, none of them would pass that stricter sandboxing requirement. Almost all Electron apps run old versions of Chromium with less complete portal support, needing sandbox escapes to function correctly, and Electron (and Chromium’s) sandboxing still needs additional tooling/downstream patching to run inside a Flatpak. Buh-boh.
I think for established projects who already ship their own binaries from their own centralised/trusted infrastructure, and for developers who have understandable sensitivities about binary integrity such such as encryption, password or financial tools, it’s a definite improvement that we’re able to set up direct uploads with such projects with less manual work. There are already quite a few applications – including verified ones – where the build recipe simply fetches a binary built elsewhere and unpacks it, and if this already done centrally by the developer, repeating the exercise on Flathub’s server adds little value.
However for the individual developer experience, I think we need to zoom out a bit and think about how to improve this from a tools and infrastructure perspective as we grow Flathub, and as we seek to raise funds for different sources for these improvements. I took notes for everything that was mentioned as a tooling limitation during the BOF, along with a few ideas about how we could improve things, and hope to share these soon as part of an RFP/RFI (Request For Proposals/Request for Information) process. We don’t have funding yet but if we have some prospective collaborators to help refine the scope and estimate the cost/effort, we can use this to go and pursue funding opportunities.
Calendar
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
30 | 31 |
Links
Archives
- April 2024
- February 2024
- March 2023
- November 2022
- May 2022
- February 2022
- June 2021
- January 2021
- August 2019
- October 2018
- July 2017
- May 2010
- October 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- March 2009
- January 2009
- July 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- May 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- June 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005