From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35873) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fHeAL-0006A6-J9 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 12 May 2018 19:43:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fHeAI-0002Wn-Cg for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 12 May 2018 19:43:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:52064) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fHeAI-0002Wf-8W for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 12 May 2018 19:43:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fHeAI-0007DM-1U for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 12 May 2018 19:43:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#30801] Add opencv Resent-Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 01:42:38 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_?= =?UTF-8?Q?H=C3=B6fling?= Message-ID: <20180513014238.44d7da6f@alma-ubu> In-Reply-To: <87bmdmpflm.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20180313175809.7d782c1a@alma-ubu> <87po45rqx5.fsf@gnu.org> <20180401002649.37231b47@alma-ubu> <87a7unglrh.fsf@gnu.org> <20180507203547.3ae3cb35@alma-ubu> <878t8sxzdi.fsf@gnu.org> <20180511115124.0f8ed3d9@alma-ubu> <87bmdmpflm.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/MW9KUeSZQu+3vQk=BZsipO2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 30801-done@debbugs.gnu.org --Sig_/MW9KUeSZQu+3vQk=BZsipO2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 11 May 2018 14:00:05 +0200 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > >> =E2=80=98guix lint=E2=80=99 reports this: > >>=20 > >> gnu/packages/image-processing.scm:201:2: opencv@3.4.1: probably > >> vulnerable to CVE-2018-7712, CVE-2018-7713, CVE-2018-7714 > >>=20 > >> Could you take a look? It could be that 3.4.2 is around the corner > >> and we=E2=80=99ll just update at that point; if not, we may have to ap= ply > >> upstream patches for these issues. =20 > > > > While finally linting, I noticed these too. OpenCV claims this is > > not an issue: > > > > https://github.com/opencv/opencv/issues/10998 > > > > Should we mention it somewhere in the code? Is there a formal > > process to hide or comment specific CVEs? =20 >=20 > The developer=E2=80=99s reasoning makes sense to me (IOW, the CVEs should= be > against the applications that don=E2=80=99t handle exceptions properly ra= ther > than against OpenCV itself.) >=20 > You can use the =E2=80=98lint-hidden-cve=E2=80=99 property to explicitly = hide them. > Please add a comment with the URL above as well. I added a new patch including documentation about lint-hidden-cve: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D31437 Bj=C3=B6rn --Sig_/MW9KUeSZQu+3vQk=BZsipO2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlr3e+8ACgkQvyhstlk+X/2uPgCgoXA5cy6yS9j670wYSsMFoXcy QigAn3MSYrOhNWbL3Isd83FZ1vEErpj/ =/XuO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/MW9KUeSZQu+3vQk=BZsipO2--