+1 for fixing it in these versions and doing quick releases. Looks good to me.
Best, Jingsong On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:18 PM Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1. The solution sounds good to me. There have been a lot of inquiries > about how to react to this. > > Thanks, > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 12:40 PM Prasanna kumar < > prasannakumarram...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 1+ for making Updates for 1.12.5 . > > We are looking for fix in 1.12 version. > > Please notify once the fix is done. > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 9:45 AM Leonard Xu <xbjt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +1 for the quick release and the special vote period 24h. > > > > > > > 2021年12月13日 上午11:49，Dian Fu <dian0511...@gmail.com> 写道： > > > > > > > > +1 for the proposal and creating a quick release. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Dian > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:15 AM Kyle Bendickson <k...@tabular.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> +1 to doing a release for this widely publicized vulnerability. > > > >> > > > >> In my experience, users will often update to the latest minor patch > > > version > > > >> without much fuss. Plus, users have also likely heard about this and > > > will > > > >> appreciate a simple fix (updating their version where possible). > > > >> > > > >> The work-around will need to still be noted for users who can’t > > upgrade > > > for > > > >> whatever reason (EMR hasn’t caught up, etc). > > > >> > > > >> I also agree with your assessment to apply a patch on each of those > > > >> previous versions with only the log4j commit, so that they don’t need > > > to be > > > >> as rigorously tested. > > > >> > > > >> Best, > > > >> Kyle (GitHub @kbendick) > > > >> > > > >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 2:23 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi all! > > > >>> > > > >>> Without doubt, you heard about the log4j vulnerability [1]. > > > >>> > > > >>> There is an advisory blog post on how to mitigate this in Apache > > Flink > > > >> [2], > > > >>> which involves setting a config option and restarting the processes. > > > That > > > >>> is fortunately a relatively simple fix. > > > >>> > > > >>> Despite this workaround, I think we should do an immediate release > > with > > > >> the > > > >>> updated dependency. Meaning not waiting for the next bug fix releases > > > >>> coming in a few weeks, but releasing asap. > > > >>> The mood I perceive in the industry is pretty much panicky over this, > > > >> and I > > > >>> expect we will see many requests for a patched release and many > > > >> discussions > > > >>> why the workaround alone would not be enough due to certain > > guidelines. > > > >>> > > > >>> I suggest that we preempt those discussions and create releases the > > > >>> following way: > > > >>> > > > >>> - we take the latest already released versions from each release > > > >> branch: > > > >>> ==> 1.14.0, 1.13.3, 1.12.5, 1.11.4 > > > >>> - we add a single commit to those that just updates the log4j > > > >> dependency > > > >>> - we release those as 1.14.1, 1.13.4, 1.12.6, 1.11.5, etc. > > > >>> - that way we don't need to do functional release tests, because the > > > >>> released code is identical to the previous release, except for the > > > log4j > > > >>> dependency > > > >>> - we can then continue the work on the upcoming bugfix releases as > > > >>> planned, without high pressure > > > >>> > > > >>> I would suggest creating those RCs immediately and release them with > > a > > > >>> special voting period (24h or so). > > > >>> > > > >>> WDYT? > > > >>> > > > >>> Best, > > > >>> Stephan > > > >>> > > > >>> [1] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-44228 > > > >>> [2] https://flink.apache.org/2021/12/10/log4j-cve.html > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- Best, Jingsong Lee
