From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id oA9eGuTTf2eHYAAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 13:49:24 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id oA9eGuTTf2eHYAAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 14:49:24 +0100 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=DrFqvsV7; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=o1BxEFWX; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1736430564; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:resent-cc: resent-from:resent-sender:resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=9/3He34/cd5rndROsT5yVWkvIkKNuHgR8cHiwJnD1rc=; b=UIpA2TtdFNh5Ss6WnSiU1hpsHKJz2xzwvWp5LHrj135Ti+ubQXcwizSoCnITVw/hZKf07M DMTrdXRhtTO8nvkDEtrwQIdbov1GeocjDfC+q/ziGHa8tTOKpBub4fotZspuOIHLRK8zwh 8b6EgOHHM1L6HOnZ0bsljqXanwMzDwUhePv4uFErEhCE2NdmdOrVUtOxjU8+pe5WZFtH8W yKQ8Wu45JNYC0/2ziJlOMcCOASgYPxXu0zYv1yriaKil8K6EEbSi5hs+xkgYm6DEzrA7yB qLM2TORRD8TCgZy6vvaq0R0dLnAFtnIIv+rDr5tXC0tu1Ix/CpPNPKPXDaJj6Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=DrFqvsV7; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=o1BxEFWX; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1736430564; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=PSm3OKPos772XZC3K5c4xa5DllghE1cG6lp7//z1lNrb9MdBuM3F11hZ5TZStxtyUCWCw1 q0U6ddE0QCyVAJF6Q7kFMVcqMZXRVcb2nBToybbJVa+XSk2dABpjIjyMctCAJIC+FMGenA pVctmu2OKK35AhdgDXLj+xKrlj3tQoDUDx85QAWR7NsuosWV9fM0pxpTR7Edfoq+jFWyoJ Ejh0G5Flhc4D3LF1UqGDSXsPHLtZtbn3Z6qhte+4GNMlUlrC0lh85J0cLp2TOsCKF3YCz1 gMjJ3Hg76dpk0fzAZKEw8wG0xO+5yKQjt1LzJ3Uur7HozvChZbgsL/SUuw0pPg== Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FEF736E9 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 14:49:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tVsuF-0008Df-Tz; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 08:49:03 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tVsuE-0008DV-4P for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 08:49:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tVsuD-0004Pr-Rl for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 08:49:01 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debbugs.gnu.org; s=debbugs-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From:To:Subject; bh=9/3He34/cd5rndROsT5yVWkvIkKNuHgR8cHiwJnD1rc=; b=DrFqvsV7NjXmeEbFWfLnmq7a185m5lILfQZNctG3aFnPxLKF+zWpGzKb5jVsxvondLUPXnRZTKKDq2y8d6NodtVI4ZGTVbXzGCOGh5U+881wwrBDyAfEsfXcT/UW9wvVowSrr02AzS0YtOgD/ciZVMsWhmw4V/SKXv9ALLnabdwKAY01m/duz7Wn+SMqShDVcr9+bp5ur/pj9m/1/LdFm1lTutMCncg5DfK5uORukGOQaL+Etz5XAgKfxE6lx6mv9JbNNhpV7wh3BW8c3VCAlETYzDHV14JgzDB8SY2kgznfbqT3c2m/1ya5y34+R3YXUuMuGrVq9i/D3HBecTs2cg==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVsuD-0000Vh-Ll for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 08:49:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74034] [PATCH v6 01/16] cve: Add cpe-vendor and lint-hidden-cpe-vendors properties. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 13:49:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 74034 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Nicolas Graves Cc: 74034@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 74034-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74034.17364305211922 (code B ref 74034); Thu, 09 Jan 2025 13:49:01 +0000 Received: (at 74034) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jan 2025 13:48:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51201 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVstt-0000Uv-0h for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 08:48:41 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39148) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVstr-0000Uh-BG for 74034@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 08:48:40 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tVstk-0004O5-Od; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 08:48:32 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=9/3He34/cd5rndROsT5yVWkvIkKNuHgR8cHiwJnD1rc=; b=o1BxEFWXK3ratJnTbqjn WXSpujUJwO0Xb4sBq4ZacZmodMaJlqW7aJHKmn2RxWMs35teAXqkQDakq/oh1ciVwxKXMOFMSzVDJ 6O81IBnDe/6NCflw9MXu4EY7ALoqLo9xT4yb69KTj9WKOyHBAgXX0UO/5DWqoaJtUIvaGW4Haj0vg comjk42WW6AUMDvT0AJqwYzsxZoY3J5lE290ozZirqy53Gi6d90DVNxeuZQsQYGCFvx0fg+yxlxhR p78NrBKXg4sf2HuoyDB7PKHeR8cMZ6Drlj79fgtCSsqZJA+nbMnvt1n8upf7H4qcl9i63dj30EhI/ O/LoxvNguA97vw==; From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= In-Reply-To: <871pxcp7ss.fsf@ngraves.fr> (Nicolas Graves's message of "Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:04:35 +0100") References: <20241026222934.25890-1-ngraves@ngraves.fr> <20241124201638.10098-1-ngraves@ngraves.fr> <87iks62oga.fsf@gnu.org> <87ser9m1j1.fsf@ngraves.fr> <8734ia16kg.fsf@gnu.org> <871pxcp7ss.fsf@ngraves.fr> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: =?UTF-8?Q?D=C3=A9cadi?= 20 =?UTF-8?Q?Niv=C3=B4se?= an 233 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution,?= jour du Van X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 14:48:29 +0100 Message-ID: <87ldvkp07m.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Scanner: mx12.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.97 X-Spam-Score: -2.97 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 6FEF736E9 X-TUID: DiPv+Pur7JE4 Hi, Nicolas Graves skribis: >>> On 2024-11-29 13:51, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >>> >>>> Nicolas Graves skribis: >>>> >>>> >>>> =E2=80=98sexp-v1->vulnerability=E2=80=99 has yet to be written, if I= =E2=80=99m not mistaken. >>>> >>>> (Perhaps I wasn=E2=80=99t clear: you need to implement this procedure = such that, >>>> when reading v1 data from ~/.cache, you still get valid >>>> records.) > > Is that actually necessary ? Since the vulnerability-packages field is > an sexp, vulnerability->sexp would be the same for v1 and v2. > > Seems like the place to handle this is rather the second match in the > vulnerabilities->lookup-proc procedure, that should have a second case > match (the previous one from version history most probably) that is > accounting for the v1. > > WDYT? What I=E2=80=99m suggesting here is a pattern commonly used in Guix where: 1. There=E2=80=99s only one in-memory representation. 2. There may be several on-disk representations, but we convert them once for all when reading them. You can find this pattern in manifests, for instance with =E2=80=98sexp->manifest=E2=80=99. That=E2=80=99s why I=E2=80=99m suggesting that =E2=80=98vulnerability->sexp= =E2=80=99 converts to the right in-memory representation when it=E2=80=99s reading a v1 sexp. Does that make sense? Ludo=E2=80=99.