From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Flex security update: RCE in generated code (CVE-2016-6354)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 23:48:10 +0200
Message-ID: <87poot7ujp.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20160826221426.GA29432@jasmine> <20160826224959.GA8478@jasmine>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47342)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bdlSd-0006nc-8x
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 17:48:20 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bdlSX-0000YV-BY
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 17:48:18 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20160826224959.GA8478@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Fri,
	26 Aug 2016 18:49:59 -0400")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Hello!

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 06:14:26PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: flex: Fix CVE-2016-6354.
>>=20
>> * gnu/packages/flex.scm (flex)[replacement]: New field.
>> (flex/fixed): New variable.
>> * gnu/packages/patches/flex-CVE-2016-6354.patch: New file.
>> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it.
>
> As Mark pointed out on #guix, bugs in flex's generated code can not be
> addressed with a graft.

Indeed.  We should add this patch to =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 and sta=
rt building
it (I haven=E2=80=99t checked the status of the various branches, though.)

> Also, the upstream tarballs that we build from often contain code
> generated by flex.

Yes, and finding out which tarballs contain vulnerable lexers (or
contain Flex-generated stuff at all) sounds difficult.

Maybe people have developed scripts to help with that?

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.