Talking Tock

Crates.io Ecosystem Not Ready for Embedded Rust Nov. 16th 2017 by Brad

As both Tock and the Rust ecosystem grow, we have been looking into using community-provided crates on crates.io to allow us to add features to Tock. For example, we are exploring using the hmac crate to support one of the networking protocols we are adding. While this seems promising, we are running into two major problems that are preventing us from using crates.io: unsafe and std:: .

Crates are Mostly Unsafe

Tock’s kernel is designed to be split into two parts: a minimal but trusted core kernel and a much larger set of untrusted “capsules”. The core kernel handles loading applications and controlling memory-mapped IO registers, and as such requires using unsafe code. The capsules, however, implement chip drivers and other utilities, and are strictly bound by the Rust typesystem (i.e. no unsafe ). This divide allows us to maximize the safety guarantees of Rust while still making a kernel possible.

This restriction on capsules has so far made it very difficult to use community-developed crates. Following up on @joshtriplett’s analysis of crates.io, we surveyed all of the crates on crates.io and found that 34% (4216/12360) of the crates use an unsafe block at least once. Of crates that have been downloaded 10k times or more, 55% (522/944) use unsafe . While these ratios are not promising, it may be possible to work around the unsafe crates. The problem gets worse, however, when we consider dependencies. Even if a crate itself does not use unsafe , if one of its dependencies does, we still cannot use it. After tracking required dependencies, 77% (9452/12360) of crates are unsafe (the number rises to 78% (9624/12360) if optional dependencies are included). This means that most of the 12,000-odd crates on crates.io are unsafe!

In Tock we mark the capsules crate with #![forbid(unsafe_code)] to ensure that no unsafe code can creep in. To see if others are doing this as well, we also scanned crates.io for the use of that flag. We found that only 0.2% (21/12360) of crates explicitly disallow unsafe code. Because there is no way to use cargo or the compiler to enforce that dependencies are safe (although we floated the idea), we checked to see if any of those explicitly-safe crates have unsafe dependencies. We found that all 21 crates have dependencies that use unsafe , making the #![forbid(unsafe_code)] flag a bit misleading.

Of course, it is entirely possible that all uses of unsafe in crates.io are valid, necessary, and actually safe. But validating this, particularly as crates are updated, for all dependencies would be a significant challenge. It seems that the Rust ecosystem needs a better mechanism for helping developers ensure that the code they depend on cannot violate type safety.

Usage of the Standard Library is Pervasive

The other challenge for Tock, as an embedded operating system, is the prevalent use of the standard library on crates.io. Running on bare-metal and without a heap, Tock cannot use std:: and only has access to the libraries provided by core:: . Any dependency we would want to use for Tock needs to include #![no_std] so that the compiler does not try to include the standard library. Again we surveyed all of the crates on crates.io and found that 93% (11488/12360) of crates use the standard library (i.e. do not have #![no_std] ). When considering only crates with 10k or more downloads, the ratio does not change (882/944). However, when including required dependencies, the number increases to 97% (12023/12360). This makes using any crates from crates.io on an embedded, memory-constrained platform nearly impossible.

Because many of the standard library modules simply re-export from core:: , many of these crates actually use functionality that does not require std:: . These crates could be updated to not require std , but there does seem to be a sense that using #![no_std] is harmful as it makes it difficult for the crate to use non-core standard library features in the future.

Cargo or the compiler could really help here. Since many features of the standard library are simply from the core:: crate, the compiler should be able to make a transparent mapping. This would continue to make it easy for developers to create libraries (they would not have to worry about core vs. std), while also supporting more crates on embedded platforms.

Are There Any Crates Tock Can Use?

From our analysis, we found that there are 109 crates on crates.io that do not use unsafe , declare #![no_std] , and only use dependencies with the same properties. Again looking at more popular crates with 10k or more downloads, there are only 13 crates that qualify.

Currently, our approach is to avoid using any external crates. To continue to provide the guarantee that capsules can contain untrusted code we need some mechanism to ensure that capsule dependencies do not use unsafe , and it seems that it is contentious to whether that type of feature belongs in the supported tools. Even with that feature, the use of unsafe appears to be too prevalent to make using crates.io feasible for Tock. Of course, simply avoiding unsafe does not guarantee perfect code, but as we noted in that Pre-RFC:

While it’s of course true that soundness/type violations are not the only source of bugs, but a caller can guarantee very strong properties about isolation if they know the callee cannot violate type safety (given the right software architecture of course).

It seems that as the community grows and the number of crates on crates.io increases, Rust needs new or better mechanisms to ensure that the type-safety promises made by the language actually hold in real-world code.