Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bug 1802880: Update to github.com/mtrmac/gpgme v0.1.2 [4.3] #1855

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mtrmac
Copy link
Contributor

@mtrmac mtrmac commented Jun 20, 2020

- What I did

This "fixes" CVE-2020-8945 by incorporating proglottis/gpgme#23 .

The code is not actually used, for two reasons:

  • Nothing in this repository invokes signature verification (the subpackage is only used to generate contents of policy.json)
  • Builds use the containers_image_openpgp build tag, which switches to the non-gpgme signature backend.

This updates the vendored code anyway

  • to avoid false positives when scanning for vulnerabilities
  • so that we don't have to worry about any future changes in this repository enabling those code paths.

Performed by

$ GOPROXY=https://proxy.golang.org GO111MODULE=on go get github.com/mtrmac/gpgme@v0.1.2 && make go-deps

in a golang:1.12 container.

- How to verify it

See a much higher number of runtime.KeepAlive calls in the vendored package, compare with the upstream release.

- Description for the changelog
N/A

This "fixes" CVE-2020-8945 by incorporating proglottis/gpgme#23 .

The code is not actually used, for two reasons:
- Nothing in this repository invokes signature verification
  (the subpackage is only used to generate contents of policy.json)
- Builds use the 'containers_image_openpgp' build tag, which
  switches to the non-gpgme signature backend.

This updates the vendored code anyway
- to avoid false positives when scanning for vulnerabilities
- so that we don't have to worry about any future changes in this
  repository enabling those code paths.

Performed by
$ GOPROXY=https://proxy.golang.org GO111MODULE=on go get github.com/mtrmac/gpgme@v0.1.2 && make go-deps
in a golang:1.12 container

Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <mitr@redhat.com>
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. label Jun 20, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@mtrmac: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1802880, which is invalid:

  • expected Bugzilla bug 1802880 to depend on a bug targeting a release in 4.4.0, 4.4.z and in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but no dependents were found

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

Bug 1802880: Update to github.com/mtrmac/gpgme v0.1.2

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Jun 20, 2020
@mtrmac
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtrmac commented Jun 20, 2020

Compare #1519 for the master branch.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mtrmac
To complete the pull request process, please assign yuqi-zhang
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @yuqi-zhang in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@mtrmac mtrmac changed the title Bug 1802880: Update to github.com/mtrmac/gpgme v0.1.2 Bug 1802880: Update to github.com/mtrmac/gpgme v0.1.2 [4.3] Jun 20, 2020
@mtrmac
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtrmac commented Jun 20, 2020

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@mtrmac: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1802880, which is invalid:

  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1849298 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is POST instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@mtrmac: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-upgrade 1bd9475 link /test e2e-gcp-upgrade
ci/prow/e2e-aws-scaleup-rhel7 1bd9475 link /test e2e-aws-scaleup-rhel7

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@runcom
Copy link
Member

runcom commented Jun 21, 2020

I think the 4.2 backport isn't necessary - we know this cve doesn't impact MCO, we should just close it for 4.2/4.3 IMO

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

I think the 4.2 backport isn't necessary - we know this cve doesn't impact MCO, we should just close it for 4.2/4.3 IMO

@runcom I'm down 👍

@mtrmac WDYT? can we close?

@mtrmac
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtrmac commented Jun 23, 2020

The cost/benefit decision of dealing with this PR and the backport process vs. the minimal risk of introducing new users of that code is entirely up to repo maintainers who will be paying the cost; I’m fine with whatever you decide.

@runcom
Copy link
Member

runcom commented Jun 23, 2020

The cost/benefit decision of dealing with this PR and the backport process vs. the minimal risk of introducing new users of that code is entirely up to repo maintainers who will be paying the cost; I’m fine with whatever you decide.

awesome, so what we know is that bumping this library and introducing more lines of code doesn't buy anything as we're not impacted by the CVE, so let's close this for 4.3

@runcom runcom closed this Jun 23, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@mtrmac: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1802880. The bug has been updated to no longer refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

Bug 1802880: Update to github.com/mtrmac/gpgme v0.1.2 [4.3]

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@runcom
Copy link
Member

runcom commented Jun 23, 2020

The only issue is automatic tools that look for CVEs with static analysis but we can't help with that - we're again not impacted by that CVE

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants