From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Expat regression fix for master branch Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:18:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20160925231811.GA1722@jasmine> References: <20160912213515.GA15911@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37834) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1boIgm-0001LD-7E for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:18:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1boIgg-0007x6-4c for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:18:27 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:59395) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1boIge-0007vG-Rb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:18:22 -0400 Received: from localhost (c-73-188-17-148.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.188.17.148]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A5308CCE7E for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:18:12 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160912213515.GA15911@jasmine> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: guix-devel@gnu.org --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:35:15PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > This patch applies an upstream patch for a regression caused by the fix= =20 > for CVE-2016-0718. >=20 > Apparently, the bug only manifests when building with -DXML_UNICODE, > which I don't think our package does. Sebastian Pipping (the Expat maintainer) contacted me to recommend that we apply the patch on the master branch. He says that the faulty code path can be reached even when XML_UNICODE is not defined. Apparently, building with -DXML_UNICODE merely makes it easier to reach the faulty code. I think we should take Sebastian's advice. What does everyone think? --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX6FszAAoJECZG+jC6yn8IAfgQALYz14mLM3eS5oJ0NouBQlSC TGtwnf49+6Qg9PkpR+GL9A9gpGRNEFh5w8eMCkQc1diq7jdj6RJpX9mk8+Pio5nS 4PBJzHylI3gu4hmecWoaZGY5msfJWEQiyzrvt9cznVrh+YcOoH/zNWdG/3G6wrOY +9IeMl/CFxGaiSyD1pdTofo20pexai7eGKNJa7C7Q2Eu74w9vX+SQTQRPhVGOfdw n7ehT+8gE1wfe1jKrgaV49OU3EJkEg+yHT+13paBg5EP2UlwkQoIKwKBe/B7/Xpl v+ujpCA7UDAQ+Y9IQE2RljVlws3+UCcfjzNZvKwl3o9wxQavt0wafJ6TJbzbiUy8 t9eH4gCKkFTUSmn5Cl1vixjx5dAC73dHb8U/NrBbVdzXsJe6zm63e2IX3x8eWwij JCv27/84h3ILfbs8/MrLYl60LA5fERFIv7eYCwFGzqyxa++FP4H2QXiFzEAQmOuh fbeCAH50hgf5CfvS3gSyt2hp4Cwf7JrPq6gbQJ5GWmtG0aWOWE5hIX573Xh3lk/E FFSWQDDvbNqQq2wv5dOdqm/0BWeVcrKe43Ki7D0xZLrYeXvoNCOu2tZs1+Wv45Q9 LUGXQHWDAvIi8CezPpy/ocAPubS/9bk2wjp779o1+lpto4cmvC6Yi3BpBuu+Ijlz W/FJ3mjBuFr6F0RLusQL =W7XA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb--