From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id +UQSCVzXgWC2NAEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:06:52 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id OH93A1zXgWCxLwAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:06:52 +0000 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 2344D19DA8 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:06:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:39378 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZfb8-0004S6-7q for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:06:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34384) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZfWr-0000qv-47 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:02:26 -0400 Received: from mail.zaclys.net ([178.33.93.72]:36651) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZfWe-0000cO-Uk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:02:24 -0400 Received: from guix-xps.local (lsl43-1_migr-78-195-19-20.fbx.proxad.net [78.195.19.20] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zaclys.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 13MK22Qa040856 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:02:02 +0200 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.zaclys.net 13MK22Qa040856 Authentication-Results: mail.zaclys.net; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=lle-bout@zaclys.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zaclys.net; s=default; t=1619121723; bh=jdV8N/rXvii1QdGGrqo1hMZaQ7wp+EOKDe0u/AC1EkY=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VUSm72D8v/r/MdgXiXNy7cvlzeJOGHFyTGC/UeRTQKwgNAxcaz9/K0GKNqxiX0dc4 62D8JLxfUiGY5zW3D9HewX4Mdn8y/kWpKlUHVuwvOWK+DRTSxkicPd03GiYfAYehYV DkJC5qOfOpaP2XT7lpsQPhsd3zw5AfG0d8u8rWCg= Message-ID: Subject: Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=E9o?= Le Bouter To: Mark H Weaver , Raghav Gururajan , Guix Devel Cc: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice , Leo Prikler , Leo Famulari Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:01:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87r1j30xmo.fsf@netris.org> References: <87tunz11mf.fsf@netris.org> <87r1j30xmo.fsf@netris.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-guj47XDSQll1MZD7gFSa" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=178.33.93.72; envelope-from=lle-bout@zaclys.net; helo=mail.zaclys.net X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list 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+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1619122011; 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:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=jdV8N/rXvii1QdGGrqo1hMZaQ7wp+EOKDe0u/AC1EkY=; b=B6B0gFWYX/BnYAApdlui//8srMfcyng+Za3Xi1z2AkaX04sKbWBFqmxgtDBjpHsX8GYWYn NeImnqbXzCyIluR3Hr8TbpECoog3Ajx7s26d2BZy5zaHjr3Sf7xsAGgJ+2lvH+RlRRXDP/ bLgFgToFNfyLYJ+xbBiTCvPFErMBqrFtoti94xZmhN/V0E+AL2anH4DA/9WGd4AVfW9A2J JC7xz9SaKRkCmv/KTD9I3BAfSw/sdwUGo320ZErjlPQwo1YBj3hcZdNeQJAzDLHbb8NFoZ MPU6Cae1cwLNKLbs9X0UWnrSCZyxcFpvMgIxXYrPFO+8oLZaKb7Mph8MQE9t7w== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619122011; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=jdqdOib1MYLunzDmkIjYVZ6huThbXVrA+XQmkNImLCHjUlarYbsSRd5fAH+1pILP3OepnE 0MvkpXT9UX8r87A/rfBbWM7nt9UPRGfdB/JTL39s/gkwzC4PYvU+XHY/Ojv68UzLB8NXgw Mf55Jpi23Wai341UyysM/EJGe9YpvmaOaZlDX6kxfDYEPAhduapRFVVZLHwyny2ipUyZHE JoAMJj+ahbq+GwaHGev1yI+WNvM6Zhda69p1OFYMs/RUrbu1FkfZ7cq6WyvtWOZYkn72fP tfQqNu3CMB1Ca0AlhbazdI+pZjMJXDzEjXJAenVenz77z9wZfEc49u0/uxNKOQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=zaclys.net header.s=default header.b=VUSm72D8; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=zaclys.net; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -5.24 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=zaclys.net header.s=default header.b=VUSm72D8; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=zaclys.net; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 2344D19DA8 X-Spam-Score: -5.24 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: 8z07fA4l6SrA --=-guj47XDSQll1MZD7gFSa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 00:08 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Hi Raghav, >=20 > Raghav Gururajan writes: >=20 > > > Those commits on 'core-updates' were digitally signed by L=C3=A9o Le > > > Bouter > > > and have the same problems: they remove > > > security > > > fixes, and yet the summary lines indicate that only "cosmetic > > > changes" > > > were made. > >=20 > > Yeah, the commit title didn't mention the change but the commit > > message did. >=20 > I'm sorry, but that won't do. There are at least three things wrong > with these commits: >=20 > (1) The summary lines were misleading, because they implied that no > functional changes were made. >=20 > (2) The commit messages were misleading, because they failed to > mention > that security holes which had previously been fixed were now > being > re-introduced. That wasn't at all obvious. >=20 > Commits like these, which remove patches that had fixed security > flaws, are fairly common: someone casually looking over the > commit > log might assume that the patches could be safely removed because > a > version update was done at the same time, rendering those patches > obsolete. >=20 > (3) Although your 'glib' commit was immediately followed by a 'glib' > update, rendering it harmless, your misleading 'cairo' commit > left > 'cairo' vulnerable to CVE-2018-19876 and CVE-2020-35492 on our > 'core-updates' and 'wip-gnome' branches. Those will need to be > fixed now. >=20 > L=C3=A9o Le Bouter is also culpable here, because h= e > digitally signed the misleading 'cairo' commit that's on our > 'core-updates' branch, which re-introduced CVE-2018-19876 and > CVE-2020-35492. >=20 > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > commit f94cdc86f644984ca83164d40b17e7eed6e22091 > gpg: Signature made Fri 26 Mar 2021 05:13:57 PM EDT > gpg: using RSA key > 148BCB8BD80BFB16B1DE0E9145A8B1E86BCD10A6 > gpg: Good signature from "L=C3=A9o Le Bouter " > [unknown] > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to > the owner. > Primary key fingerprint: 148B CB8B D80B FB16 B1DE 0E91 45A8 B1E8 > 6BCD 10A6 > Author: Raghav Gururajan > Date: Fri Dec 4 00:48:43 2020 -0500 >=20 > gnu: cairo: Make some cosmetic changes. > =20 > * gnu/packages/patches/cairo-CVE-2018-19876.patch, > gnu/packages/patches/cairo-CVE-2020-35492.patch: Remove patches. > * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Unregister them. > * gnu/packages/gtk.scm (cairo): Make some cosmetic changes. > [replacement]: Remove. > (cairo/fixed): Remove. > =20 > Signed-off-by: L=C3=A9o Le Bouter > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >=20 > https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?h=3Dcore-updates&id=3Df94cdc= 86f644984ca83164d40b17e7eed6e22091 >=20 > Even the most superficial skimming of this commit should have > immediately raised red flags, because the summary line is clearly > inaccurate. It shows a lack of careful review, to put it mildly. >=20 > Mark Hello Mark, I don't share your analysis, the security fixes werent stripped because glib/cairo was also updated to latest version in subsequent commits which were pushed all at once. Careful review was done, and that's why I signed-off and GPG-signed the commits. Nobody was put at risk by these commits and no security fixes were stripped. L=C3=A9o --=-guj47XDSQll1MZD7gFSa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEFIvLi9gL+xax3g6RRaix6GvNEKYFAmCB1jQACgkQRaix6GvN EKa6uw/+N+JQgYv5xwGAQX57owv/KNaU3dL4SdY7xX0LIg/8c7S3ni6aC85gK7FQ daU5sjbRR74r8021Owa8WeJ6OhovQ6Ewjmr25BK3Kb50bnzXzK9b9k0m2kuWsrz2 g9nuSbiIi9+B+QC4YitzI4SlC++oadvOlBvHxbEcVESa6db+V61cGsTpfPe4hVFZ Zx6bcBJ/lmZepfqR236wRooxI20m0fAlnfB3RDPBYNURAWGJOhLCLB41LeFnA6iL uDkvaaX65YbbUZJN9ScX/dTpaJcM485pfKJmsMfUjKHVKtUUKKzUr02b4+dfmmzQ 4suegx69+g7gpNXvQ/Fzhjz02rjITsP2sSIx7u9Hn0mq0jOwHRUk7Qde/kGOVbJ8 vzawRUwLZ/9nhHi+y8dOwDDruaBy41ky2kUq08biFVT01q/aXboDRdlxLhCAXNQy KYEEAtEi7XuNMPlIDgE9ZTw1O+J1fdEzTiLB5B7UfGC0qAkNtC9tX4vX9OKMoG+h QVRSoe7E+ftyuO5RzDF6yQmTPE1YmvfbPyKw04/73jy6hP1pMg/7iOnCYBsU0g/U 2waewCsPQulpcnxaA1RkQyEclDdZ5yGGF9cCF9q0COvfhp4velgGGIqsWXrjAu2e H9DBJfo4j56nI3hIwwyXD+oy7JJiXgipmq+RfXYQqAuYVm4Zq34= =y7C5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-guj47XDSQll1MZD7gFSa--