Hi Simon, On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 06:57:30PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 09:48:57PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 at 22:04:24 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > For bullseye I think we should simply pick the upstream commit? > > > > Yes: we didn't keep up with upstream 2.50.x so there are a bunch of > > unrelated fixes (2.50.4 up to .7) which would be out of scope for a > > security update. If it was a package I knew better then I might be > > advocating the new upstream release, but I can't really assess risk vs > > benefit for librsvg, so cherry-picking the equivalent of .8 and .9 seems > > more conservative. > > > > <https://salsa.debian.org/gnome-team/librsvg/-/merge_requests/20> > > compiles successfully, I'll try it in a bullseye VM next. > > If you are happy with the results and coverage from unstable, would > you be open to prepare/finalize next the respective updates for > bookworm-security and bullseye-security? > > Thanks a lot for your work so far on it!
With some delays DSA released for it. In fact, I guess anybody running e.g. a webservice converting untrusted svg files would sandbox anyway such a service. Upstream correctly noted that in the upstream issue. Thanks for your work and contributing the update! Regards, Salvatore