[bug#47193] Fancify guix lint -c cve output

[bug#47193] Fancify guix lint -c cve output

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 446 bytes --]

Guix,

A quick hack requested by lle-bout: indicate CVE severity with
pretty/scary colours[0].  It's deliberately simple: no scoring, no 
versioning, no importing (guix colors) from (guix cve), ...

Another patch adds order to the rainbow.  Sort CVEs by ID, so 
roughly
chronological.  In combination with the other patch, I prefer this 
to
more complex ordering and/or grouping by severity.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[0]: https://tobias.gr/tmp.png

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]

[bug#47193] [PATCH 1/2] lint: Sort possible vulnerabilities.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via]

* guix/lint.scm (check-vulnerabilities): Sort unpatched vulnerabilities
by ID.
---
 guix/lint.scm | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/guix/lint.scm b/guix/lint.scm
index 5144fa139d..ed57e19fe2 100644
--- a/guix/lint.scm
+++ b/guix/lint.scm
@@ -1164,6 +1164,23 @@ the NIST server non-fatal."
                                             package-vulnerabilities))
   "Check for known vulnerabilities for PACKAGE.  Obtain the list of
 vulnerability records for PACKAGE by calling PACKAGE-VULNERABILITIES."
+
+  (define (vulnerability< v1 v2)
+    (define (string-list< list1 list2)
+      (match list1
+        ((head1 tail1 ...)
+         (match list2
+           ((head2 tail2 ...)
+            (if (string=? head1 head2)
+                (string-list< tail1 tail2)
+                (string<? head1 head2)))
+           (_ #f)))
+        (_ #f)))
+
+    (let ((separators (char-set-complement char-set:letter+digit)))
+      (string-list< (string-split (vulnerability-id v1) separators)
+                    (string-split (vulnerability-id v2) separators))))
+
   (let ((package (or (package-replacement package) package)))
     (match (package-vulnerabilities package)
       (()
@@ -1184,7 +1201,8 @@ vulnerability records for PACKAGE by calling PACKAGE-VULNERABILITIES."
               (make-warning
                package
                (G_ "probably vulnerable to ~a")
-               (list (string-join (map vulnerability-id unpatched)
+               (list (string-join (map vulnerability-id
+                                       (sort unpatched vulnerability<))
                                   ", "))))))))))
 
 (define (check-for-updates package)
-- 
2.30.1

[bug#47193] [PATCH 2/2] lint: Indicate CVE severity.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via]

* guix/cve.scm <cve-item>[cvss3-base-severity]: New field.
(impact-data->cve-cvss3-base-severity): New procedure.
<vulnerability>[severity]: New field.
(vulnerability->sexp, sexp->vulnerability, cve-item->vulnerability)
(write-cache): Bump the format version to 2.
(vulnerabilities->lookup-proc): Adjust accordingly.
* guix/lint.scm (check-vulnerabilities): Indicate CVE severity according
to the output port's terminal capabilities.
---
 guix/cve.scm  | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 guix/lint.scm | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/guix/cve.scm b/guix/cve.scm
index b3a8b13a06..3809e4493f 100644
--- a/guix/cve.scm
+++ b/guix/cve.scm
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 ;;; GNU Guix --- Functional package management for GNU
 ;;; Copyright © 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>
+;;; Copyright © 2021 Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -38,6 +39,7 @@
             cve-item?
             cve-item-cve
             cve-item-configurations
+            cve-item-cvssv3-base-severity
             cve-item-published-date
             cve-item-last-modified-date
 
@@ -53,6 +55,7 @@
 
             vulnerability?
             vulnerability-id
+            vulnerability-severity
             vulnerability-packages
 
             json->vulnerabilities
@@ -72,13 +75,15 @@
 
 (define-json-mapping <cve-item> cve-item cve-item?
   json->cve-item
-  (cve            cve-item-cve "cve" json->cve)   ;<cve>
-  (configurations cve-item-configurations         ;list of sexps
-                  "configurations" configuration-data->cve-configurations)
-  (published-date cve-item-published-date
-                  "publishedDate" string->date*)
-  (last-modified-date cve-item-last-modified-date
-                      "lastModifiedDate" string->date*))
+  (cve                  cve-item-cve "cve" json->cve) ;<cve>
+  (configurations       cve-item-configurations       ;list of sexps
+                        "configurations" configuration-data->cve-configurations)
+  (cvssv3-base-severity cve-item-cvssv3-base-severity ;string
+                        "impact" impact-data->cve-cvssv3-base-severity)
+  (published-date       cve-item-published-date
+                        "publishedDate" string->date*)
+  (last-modified-date   cve-item-last-modified-date
+                        "lastModifiedDate" string->date*))
 
 (define-json-mapping <cve> cve cve?
   json->cve
@@ -183,6 +188,15 @@ element found in CVEs, return an sexp such as (\"binutils\" (<
   (let ((nodes (vector->list (assoc-ref alist "nodes"))))
     (filter-map node->configuration nodes)))
 
+(define (impact-data->cve-cvssv3-base-severity alist)
+  "Given ALIST, a JSON dictionary for the \"impact\" element found in
+CVEs, return a string indicating its CVSSv3 severity.  This should be
+one of \"NONE\", \"LOW\", \"MEDIUM\", \"HIGH\", or \"CRITICAL\", but we
+return whatever we find, or #F if the severity cannot be determined."
+  (let* ((base-metric-v3 (assoc-ref alist "baseMetricV3"))
+         (cvss-v3        (assoc-ref base-metric-v3 "cvssV3")))
+    (assoc-ref cvss-v3 "baseSeverity")))
+
 (define (json->cve-items json)
   "Parse JSON, an input port or a string, and return a list of <cve-item>
 records."
@@ -251,20 +265,21 @@ records."
   (* 3600 24 (date-month %now)))
 
 (define-record-type <vulnerability>
-  (vulnerability id packages)
+  (vulnerability id severity packages)
   vulnerability?
   (id         vulnerability-id)             ;string
+  (severity   vulnerability-severity)       ;string
   (packages   vulnerability-packages))      ;((p1 sexp1) (p2 sexp2) ...)
 
 (define vulnerability->sexp
   (match-lambda
-    (($ <vulnerability> id packages)
-     `(v ,id ,packages))))
+    (($ <vulnerability> id severity packages)
+     `(v ,id ,severity ,packages))))
 
 (define sexp->vulnerability
   (match-lambda
-    (('v id (packages ...))
-     (vulnerability id packages))))
+    (('v id severity (packages ...))
+     (vulnerability id severity packages))))
 
 (define (cve-configuration->package-list config)
   "Parse CONFIG, a config sexp, and return a list of the form (P SEXP)
@@ -309,12 +324,13 @@ versions."
   "Return a <vulnerability> corresponding to ITEM, a <cve-item> record;
 return #f if ITEM does not list any configuration or if it does not list
 any \"a\" (application) configuration."
-  (let ((id (cve-id (cve-item-cve item))))
+  (let ((id (cve-id (cve-item-cve item)))
+        (severity (cve-item-base-severity item)))
     (match (cve-item-configurations item)
       (()                                         ;no configurations
        #f)
       ((configs ...)
-       (vulnerability id
+       (vulnerability id severity
                       (merge-package-lists
                        (map cve-configuration->package-list configs)))))))
 
@@ -332,7 +348,7 @@ sexp to CACHE."
         (json->vulnerabilities input))
 
       (write `(vulnerabilities
-               1                                  ;format version
+               2                                  ;format version
                ,(map vulnerability->sexp vulns))
              cache))))
 
@@ -396,7 +412,7 @@ vulnerabilities affecting the given package version."
     ;; Map package names to lists of version/vulnerability pairs.
     (fold (lambda (vuln table)
             (match vuln
-              (($ <vulnerability> id packages)
+              (($ <vulnerability> id severity packages)
                (fold (lambda (package table)
                        (match package
                          ((name . versions)
diff --git a/guix/lint.scm b/guix/lint.scm
index ed57e19fe2..f3c4e13052 100644
--- a/guix/lint.scm
+++ b/guix/lint.scm
@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
   #:use-module (guix monads)
   #:use-module (guix scripts)
   #:use-module ((guix ui) #:select (texi->plain-text fill-paragraph))
+  #:use-module (guix colors)
   #:use-module (guix gnu-maintenance)
   #:use-module (guix cve)
   #:use-module ((guix swh) #:hide (origin?))
@@ -1165,6 +1166,35 @@ the NIST server non-fatal."
   "Check for known vulnerabilities for PACKAGE.  Obtain the list of
 vulnerability records for PACKAGE by calling PACKAGE-VULNERABILITIES."
 
+  (define severity->color
+    ;; A standard CVE colour gradient is red > orange > yellow > green > none.
+    ;; However, ANSI non-bold YELLOW is actually orange whilst BOLD YELLOW
+    ;; is actual yellow, so BOLD would confusingly be less serious.  Skip it.
+    (match-lambda
+      ("CRITICAL"     (color BOLD RED))
+      ("HIGH"         (color RED))
+      ("MEDIUM"       (color YELLOW))
+      ("LOW"          (color GREEN))
+      (_              (color))))
+
+  (define (colorize-vulnerability vulnerability)
+    ;; If the terminal supports ANSI colours, use them to indicate severity.
+    (colorize-string (vulnerability-id vulnerability)
+                     (severity->color (vulnerability-severity
+                                       vulnerability))))
+
+  (define (simple-format-vulnerability vulnerability)
+    ;; Otherwise, omit colour coding and explicitly append the severity string.
+    (simple-format #f "~a (~a)"
+                   (vulnerability-id vulnerability)
+                   (string-downcase (vulnerability-severity vulnerability))))
+
+  (define format-vulnerability
+    ;; Check once which of the above to use for all PACKAGE vulnerabilities.
+    (if (color-output? (current-output-port))
+        colorize-vulnerability
+        simple-format-vulnerability))
+
   (define (vulnerability< v1 v2)
     (define (string-list< list1 list2)
       (match list1
@@ -1201,7 +1231,7 @@ vulnerability records for PACKAGE by calling PACKAGE-VULNERABILITIES."
               (make-warning
                package
                (G_ "probably vulnerable to ~a")
-               (list (string-join (map vulnerability-id
+               (list (string-join (map format-vulnerability
                                        (sort unpatched vulnerability<))
                                   ", "))))))))))
 
-- 
2.30.1

[bug#47193] Fancify guix lint -c cve output

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> skribis:

> * guix/cve.scm <cve-item>[cvss3-base-severity]: New field.
> (impact-data->cve-cvss3-base-severity): New procedure.
> <vulnerability>[severity]: New field.
> (vulnerability->sexp, sexp->vulnerability, cve-item->vulnerability)
> (write-cache): Bump the format version to 2.
> (vulnerabilities->lookup-proc): Adjust accordingly.
> * guix/lint.scm (check-vulnerabilities): Indicate CVE severity according
> to the output port's terminal capabilities.

I would move the lint.scm bit to a separate patch.

Please also add a short test for ‘vulnerability-severity’ in
tests/cve.scm.

[...]

> +  (cvssv3-base-severity cve-item-cvssv3-base-severity ;string
> +                        "impact" impact-data->cve-cvssv3-base-severity)
> +  (published-date       cve-item-published-date
> +                        "publishedDate" string->date*)
> +  (last-modified-date   cve-item-last-modified-date
> +                        "lastModifiedDate" string->date*))
>  
>  (define-json-mapping <cve> cve cve?
>    json->cve
> @@ -183,6 +188,15 @@ element found in CVEs, return an sexp such as (\"binutils\" (<
>    (let ((nodes (vector->list (assoc-ref alist "nodes"))))
>      (filter-map node->configuration nodes)))
>  
> +(define (impact-data->cve-cvssv3-base-severity alist)
> +  "Given ALIST, a JSON dictionary for the \"impact\" element found in
> +CVEs, return a string indicating its CVSSv3 severity.  This should be
> +one of \"NONE\", \"LOW\", \"MEDIUM\", \"HIGH\", or \"CRITICAL\", but we
> +return whatever we find, or #F if the severity cannot be determined."
> +  (let* ((base-metric-v3 (assoc-ref alist "baseMetricV3"))
> +         (cvss-v3        (assoc-ref base-metric-v3 "cvssV3")))
> +    (assoc-ref cvss-v3 "baseSeverity")))

I would pass the result through (string->symbol (string-downcase …)).

For clarity, perhaps we can do:

  (define-json-mapping <cvss> cvss cvss?
    json->cvss
    (vector-string  cvss-vector-string “vector_String")
    (base-severity  cvss-severity "base_Severity"
                    (compose string->symbol string-downcase)))

… and use that instead of the last ‘assoc-ref’ call above.

The rest LGTM.

Thanks for this pleasant improvement!

Ludo’.

[bug#47193] Fancify guix lint -c cve output

[Léo Le Bouter via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 15:03 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

[...]

> The rest LGTM.
> 
> Thanks for this pleasant improvement!
> 
> Ludo’.
> 

Hello Ludo!

Did you get it to work on your end?

Léo

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[bug#47193] Fancify guix lint -c cve output

[Ludovic Courtès]

Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net> skribis:

> Did you get it to work on your end?

I didn’t try, but I’m confident Tobias will do the right thing!

Ludo’.

[bug#47193] Fancify guix lint -c cve output

[Léo Le Bouter via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 413 bytes --]

On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 22:57 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net> skribis:
> 
> > Did you get it to work on your end?
> 
> I didn’t try, but I’m confident Tobias will do the right thing!
> 
> Ludo’.

I see, thanks, I was looking to get it to work for me since Tobias
seems busy maybe you had some elements I could use, I don't doubt they
will do the right thing!

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[bug#47193] Fancify guix lint -c cve output

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> skribis:

> * guix/lint.scm (check-vulnerabilities): Sort unpatched vulnerabilities
> by ID.

[...]

>                (make-warning
>                 package
>                 (G_ "probably vulnerable to ~a")
> -               (list (string-join (map vulnerability-id unpatched)
> +               (list (string-join (map vulnerability-id
> +                                       (sort unpatched vulnerability<))
>                                    ", "))))))))))

Nitpick: it might be a bit clearer done the other way around:

  (sort (map vulnerability-id unpatched) cve-id<?)

… where ‘cve-id<?’ is like ‘vulnerability<’ but takes a CVE ID (a
string).

Otherwise LGTM!

Ludo’.

[bug#47193] Fancify guix lint -c cve output

[Léo Le Bouter via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1880 bytes --]

Hello!

Thanks a lot for working on this!! :-D

I get a warning during compilation:

guix/cve.scm:328:18: warning: possibly unbound variable `cve-item-base-
severity'

I also just tried it on patch package and it fails:

$ ./pre-inst-env guix lint -c cve patch
Backtrace:atch@2.7.6 [cve]...
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1736:10 18 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
In unknown file:
          17 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7f5c56304520>)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
    718:2 16 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handle…>)
In ice-9/eval.scm:
    619:8 15 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7f5c56307c80>)))
In guix/ui.scm:
  2164:12 14 (run-guix-command _ . _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1736:10 13 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
  1731:15 12 (with-exception-handler #<procedure 7f5c52ccde40 at ic…>
…)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
    634:9 11 (for-each #<procedure 7f5c52ccb620 at guix/scripts/lin…>
…)
In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
     65:4 10 (run-checkers #<package patch@2.7.6 gnu/packages/base.…>
…)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
    634:9  9 (for-each #<procedure 7f5c43b5df30 at guix/scripts/lin…>
…)
In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
    74:21  8 (_ _)
In guix/lint.scm:
   1205:4  7 (check-vulnerabilities #<package patch@2.7.6 gnu/packa…>
…)
   1151:9  6 (_ _)
In unknown file:
           5 (force #<promise #<procedure 7f5c5303cab8 at guix/lint.…>)
In guix/lint.scm:
   1134:2  4 (_)
   1093:2  3 (call-with-networking-fail-safe _ _ _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1736:10  2 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
  1669:16  1 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)
  1667:16  0 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)

ice-9/boot-9.scm:1667:16: In procedure raise-exception:
Throw to key `match-error' with args `("match" "no matching pattern" (v
"CVE-2021-0212" (("contrail_networking" (< "1911.31")))))'.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[bug#47193] Fancify guix lint -c cve output

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1011 bytes --]

Léo!

Léo Le Bouter via Guix-patches via 写道：
> guix/cve.scm:328:18: warning: possibly unbound variable 
> `cve-item-base-
> severity'

One dark and stormy night I turned away an old woman at my doors, 
and ever since I have been cursed to include at least one stupid 
typo in each patch I send.  True story.

Thanks for testing.  Fixed but it should not affect running guix 
lint.

> I also just tried it on patch package and it fails:

Hmm.  I bet ‘rm -rf ~/.cache/guix/http’ will make this go 
conveniently away, just like lady stormypants.

> (v "CVE-2021-0212" (("contrail_networking" ...

This is a stale cache file lacking the newly added ‘severity’ 
field:

(v "CVE-2021-0212" "MEDIUM" (("contrail_networking" ...

I bumped the format version to 2 in (guix cve) to signal this 
incompatible change, but it appears this field may exist merely as 
a friendly reminder to actually add version handling some day...?

I guess today is that day.

Bah,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]

[bug#47193] Fancify guix lint -c cve output

[Léo Le Bouter via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6836 bytes --]

On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 22:12 +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
> Léo!

Tobias! :-)

> Léo Le Bouter via Guix-patches via 写道：
> > guix/cve.scm:328:18: warning: possibly unbound variable 
> > `cve-item-base-
> > severity'
> 
> One dark and stormy night I turned away an old woman at my doors, 
> and ever since I have been cursed to include at least one stupid 
> typo in each patch I send.  True story.
> 
> Thanks for testing.  Fixed but it should not affect running guix 
> lint.

I tried fixing it as well,

$ git diff
diff --git a/guix/cve.scm b/guix/cve.scm
index 3809e4493f..d52ea05117 100644
--- a/guix/cve.scm
+++ b/guix/cve.scm
@@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ versions."
 return #f if ITEM does not list any configuration or if it does not
list
 any \"a\" (application) configuration."
   (let ((id (cve-id (cve-item-cve item)))
-        (severity (cve-item-base-severity item)))
+        (severity (cve-item-cvssv3-base-severity item)))
     (match (cve-item-configurations item)
       (()                                         ;no configurations
        #f)

Look right?

> Hmm.  I bet ‘rm -rf ~/.cache/guix/http’ will make this go 
> conveniently away, just like lady stormypants.

I tried that (without the fix above) and:

$ ./pre-inst-env guix lint -c cve patch
fetching CVE database for 2021...
Backtrace:
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1736:10 18 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
In unknown file:
          17 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7fd1e5545520>)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
    718:2 16 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handle…>)
In ice-9/eval.scm:
    619:8 15 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7fd1e5548c80>)))
In guix/ui.scm:
  2164:12 14 (run-guix-command _ . _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1736:10 13 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
  1731:15 12 (with-exception-handler #<procedure 7fd1e1f0ee40 at ic…>
…)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
    634:9 11 (for-each #<procedure 7fd1e1f0b000 at guix/scripts/lin…>
…)
In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
     65:4 10 (run-checkers _ _ #:store _)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
    634:9  9 (for-each #<procedure 7fd1d2f805d0 at guix/scripts/lin…>
…)
In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
    74:21  8 (_ _)
In guix/lint.scm:
   1205:4  7 (check-vulnerabilities _ _)
   1151:9  6 (_ _)
In unknown file:
           5 (force #<promise #<procedure 7fd1e227dab8 at guix/lint.…>)
In guix/lint.scm:
   1134:2  4 (_)
   1093:2  3 (call-with-networking-fail-safe _ _ _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1736:10  2 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
  1669:16  1 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)
  1667:16  0 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)

ice-9/boot-9.scm:1667:16: In procedure raise-exception:
error: cve-item-base-severity: unbound variable

Then *with* the fix:

$ ./pre-inst-env guix lint -c cve patch
fetching CVE database for 2021...
Backtrace:
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1736:10 18 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
In unknown file:
          17 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7f4a634a5520>)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
    718:2 16 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handle…>)
In ice-9/eval.scm:
    619:8 15 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7f4a634a8c80>)))
In guix/ui.scm:
  2164:12 14 (run-guix-command _ . _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1736:10 13 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
  1731:15 12 (with-exception-handler #<procedure 7f4a5fe6c8d0 at ic…>
…)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
    634:9 11 (for-each #<procedure 7f4a5fe6ec20 at guix/scripts/lin…>
…)
In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
     65:4 10 (run-checkers _ _ #:store _)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
    634:9  9 (for-each #<procedure 7f4a50f5a0f0 at guix/scripts/lin…>
…)
In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
    74:21  8 (_ _)
In guix/lint.scm:
   1205:4  7 (check-vulnerabilities _ _)
   1151:9  6 (_ _)
In unknown file:
           5 (force #<promise #<procedure 7f4a601ddab8 at guix/lint.…>)
In guix/lint.scm:
   1134:2  4 (_)
   1093:2  3 (call-with-networking-fail-safe _ _ _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1736:10  2 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
  1669:16  1 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)
  1667:16  0 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)

ice-9/boot-9.scm:1667:16: In procedure raise-exception:
Throw to key `match-error' with args `("match" "no matching pattern"
(vulnerabilities 2 ((v "CVE-2021-0212" "MEDIUM" (("contrail_networking"
(< "1911.31")))) (v "CVE-2021-0220" "MEDIUM" (("junos_space" (or "19.1"
(or "18.4" (or "18.3" (or "18.2" (or "18.1r1" (or "18.1" (or "17.21.4"
(or "17.2" (or "17.1" (or "16.1" (or "15.2" (or "15.14" (or "15.12" (or
"15.1" (or "14.1" (or "13.33" (or "13.11.8" (or "13.1" (or "12.3" (or
"12.2" (or "12.1" (or "11.4" (or "11.3" (or "11.2" (or "11.1" (or "2.0"
(or "1.4" (or "1.3" (or "1.2" (or "1.1"
"1.0"))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) (v "CVE-2021-1051" "HIGH"
(("gpu_driver" (or (and (>= "460") (< "461.09")) (or (and (>= "450") (<
"452.77")) (or (and (>= "418") (< "427.11")) (and (>= "390") (<
"392.63")))))))) (v "CVE-2021-1052" "HIGH" (("gpu_driver" (or (or (and
(>= "460") (< "460.32.03")) (or (and (>= "450") (< "450.102.04")) (and
(>= "390") (< "390.141")))) (or (and (>= "460") (< "461.09")) (or (and
(>= "450") (< "452.77")) (or (and (>= "418") (< "427.11")) (and (>=
"390") (< "392.63"))))))))) (v "CVE-2021-1053" "MEDIUM" (("gpu_driver"
(or (or (and (>= "460") (< "460.32.03")) (or (and (>= "450") (<
"450.102.04")) (and (>= "390") (< "390.141")))) (or (and (>= "460") (<
"461.09")) (or (and (>= "450") (< "452.77")) (or (and (>= "418") (<
"427.11")) (and (>= "390") (< "392.63"))))))))) (v "CVE-2021-1054"
"MEDIUM" (("gpu_driver" (or (and (>= "460") (< "461.09")) (or (and (>=
"450") (< "452.77")) (or (and (>= "418") (< "427.11")) (and (>= "390")
(< "392.63")))))))) (v "CVE-2021-1055" "MEDIUM" (("gpu_driver" (or (and
(>= "460") (< "461.09")) (or (and (>= "450") (< "452.77")) (or (and (>=
"
[...]

I ran "$ rm -rf ~/.cache/guix/http" between each and every of these
attempts. The cache is clear, I also did make clean and recompiled (so
no left around .go file).

> 
> > (v "CVE-2021-0212" (("contrail_networking" ...
> 
> This is a stale cache file lacking the newly added ‘severity’ 
> field:
> 
> (v "CVE-2021-0212" "MEDIUM" (("contrail_networking" ...
> 
> I bumped the format version to 2 in (guix cve) to signal this 
> incompatible change, but it appears this field may exist merely as 
> a friendly reminder to actually add version handling some day...?
> 
> I guess today is that day.
> 
> Bah,

Don't know! I think there's some other issue here, or maybe you
modified the patch a little more on your side.

PS: I looked at the image you initially posted and the output looks
really nice and helpful!!

> 
> T G-R

Thank you :-D

Léo

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[bug#47193] Fancify guix lint -c cve output

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1027 bytes --]

Léo Le Bouter 写道：
> On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 22:12 +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
>> Léo!
>
> Tobias! :-)

Yes!

> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1667:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> Throw to key `match-error' with args `("match" "no matching 
> pattern"
> (vulnerabilities 2 ((v "CVE-2021-0212" "MEDIUM" 
> (("contrail_networking"

Thanks for including the full error message.  Now the cached 
data's as expected but the code chokes on it anyway.  Sure, why 
not.

> Don't know! I think there's some other issue here, or maybe you
> modified the patch a little more on your side.

I haven't, and like you've I (regularly) remove stale .go files 
and delete ~/.cache/guix.  Works like a screenshotted charm.

I'm not in the mood for spooks; time to bust out the flamethrower 
that is a fresh git clone.

> PS: I looked at the image you initially posted and the output 
> looks
> really nice and helpful!!

Oh, good to know that is what you had in mind.  I wasn't sure.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]