https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/4096
The PR based on log4j 2.17.2-SNAPSHOT is ready. PTAL. Next I will build the tarball and test whether the logging works as expected. 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2022年2月5日周六 16:05写道： > On the config file format, on master branch I switched to xml because most > log4j2 related resources(for example, answers on stackoverflow...) are xml > based. But LOG4J2-3341 can only work with properties based config file > format so the plan is to change back to properties file. > Of course you still need to tweak the config files, as the config names > are not exactly the same, but if we have LOG4J2-3341 then I do not think > our users need to tweak the scripts, this is good news at least. > > We have already tried our best to not introduce log4j dependencies to our > downstream users so I think the current branch-2.5 is already > 'incompatible' enough for our users as in the old time we were likely to > pull in log4j and slf4j-log4j if they depend on hbase-testing-util. But for > me, I do not think introducing log4j as a dependency is the correct way so > I would like to include this and add a section in the release announcement > to say this. > > In short, I'm +1 on switching to log4j2 on branch-2.5 and I will offer my > help to land the changes. > > Thanks. > > Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> 于2022年2月1日周二 02:49写道： > >> That is good news. >> WDYT about integrating this work into branch-2.5 / 2.5.0, and branch-2, of >> course. Is it compatible enough? Needing to update a properties file and >> tweaks to launch scripts, if any, would be fine and can be handled in a >> release note. Switching away from a properties based format to an XML >> format would not (just as example). >> >> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 4:57 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Good news, LOG4J2-3341 has been landed. It will be released in log4j >> > 2.17.2. >> > >> > Will start to test it soon. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2022年1月25日周二 17:15写道： >> > >> > > I would prefer we have LOG4J2-3341 first before releasing any 2.x >> > releases >> > > with log4j2. I pinged the log4j community once but no response yet. >> Will >> > > try to ping again soon. >> > > >> > > Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> 于2022年1月25日周二 10:09写道： >> > > >> > >> Reload4J is a great option when we really should maintain fairly >> strict >> > >> compatibility (patch releases) and less so when not (minors, majors). >> > >> >> > >> We haven’t released 2.5.0 yet. My fault, mainly... It’s been lagging. >> > >> Perhaps we could backport Duo’s work from 3.0.0-alpha into >> branch-2.5 / >> > >> 2.5.0? This would be a minor release, so, while some operational >> > >> compatibility breaks would be somewhat surprising, it could be more >> > >> understandable. >> > >> >> > >> > On Jan 24, 2022, at 5:00 PM, Zach York <zy...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > +1 on the original discussion >> > >> > >> > >> > I think that all makes sense, we can't know whether one dependency >> is >> > >> more >> > >> > vulnerable/going to be more work to maintain or not. However, I >> think >> > >> > perhaps the more interesting question is whether we should be okay >> > with >> > >> > using EOL dependencies in any active release line. CVEs happen... I >> > >> think >> > >> > it's important to be able to react quickly. By depending on any EOL >> > >> code in >> > >> > our active release lines, we severely limit our ability to quickly >> > deal >> > >> > with CVEs. I understand it's not always easy (the backwards >> > >> incompatibility >> > >> > of log4j2 and the properties files are good examples), but it's >> also >> > >> been >> > >> > 6+ years since log4j 1.x has become EOL. >> > >> > >> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 11:47 AM Andrew Purtell < >> apurt...@apache.org >> > > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I will offer a guess as answer to the question originally >> proposed, >> > >> which >> > >> >> is, no the Logging PMC is not going to behave in a cooperative >> manner >> > >> to >> > >> >> Reload4J. The best we can hope for, and I personally doubt it, is >> > they >> > >> will >> > >> >> not be actively hostile. Decisions made by Apache PMC can >> > >> unfortunately be >> > >> >> made on the basis of years-long running arguments and personality >> > >> >> conflicts, and Logging is unfortunately one of them. Just my >> opinion. >> > >> You >> > >> >> won't change it. Fortunately that is neither here nor there. We >> > aren't >> > >> here >> > >> >> to judge up front if Reload4J can respond adequately to >> hypothetical >> > >> future >> > >> >> security issues. That is not knowable and remains to be seen. It >> also >> > >> >> remains to be seen if Log4J 2 is going to respond adequately to >> > future >> > >> >> security issues. Or Netty. Or Jersey. Or Jackson. Or any of our >> other >> > >> risky >> > >> >> third party dependencies (as measured by having "interesting" >> CVEs). >> > >> What >> > >> >> we can do is look at the current track record, which has been >> > adequate >> > >> so >> > >> >> far. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 11:35 AM Wei-Chiu Chuang >> > >> >> <weic...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >>> The reload4j is maintained by one of the Apache Logging PMC. And >> a >> > >> >> release >> > >> >>> was made to address the latest log4j 1.x CVEs announced only a >> day >> > >> after. >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> There is a thread in the private@logging that mentioned the >> “new” >> > >> >> log4j1.x >> > >> >>> CVEs were actually not new. They were announced years before for >> 2.x >> > >> >> which >> > >> >>> happens to also impact 1.x. But because 1.x was considered EOL, >> they >> > >> >> didn’t >> > >> >>> bother to mention 1.x were affected. It is only now that 1.x’s >> > getting >> > >> >>> interest that they did this. >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org>於 2022年1月22日 週六，上午2:47寫道： >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>>> It's relevant to what kind of mitigation this is. The >> effectiveness >> > >> of >> > >> >>>> reload4j to deal with "the critical CVEs of log4j 1" is limited >> by >> > >> how >> > >> >>>> likely it is that they know about them. >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> Otherwise at the next CVE we're back in the same place where >> > >> downstream >> > >> >>>> users aren't meaningfully more protected. And in that case >> perhaps >> > we >> > >> >>> would >> > >> >>>> do better for our users by e.g. putting more emphasis upgrading >> > >> across >> > >> >>> our >> > >> >>>> releases or providing breaking changes to get the pain over >> with. >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 11:03 AM Andrew Purtell < >> > >> >>> andrew.purt...@gmail.com> >> > >> >>>> wrote: >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>>> That does not seem germane to this discussion. We don’t >> > investigate >> > >> >> and >> > >> >>>>> attempt to manage the security reporting arrangement of any of >> our >> > >> >>> other >> > >> >>>>> third party dependencies. >> > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> On Jan 21, 2022, at 7:59 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> >> > >> >> wrote: >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> Has anyone asked the ASF Logging PMC if they'll forward >> security >> > >> >>>> reports >> > >> >>>>>> against log4j 1 to the reload4j project? >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 3:33 AM Pankaj Kumar < >> > >> >>> pankajku...@apache.org> >> > >> >>>>> wrote: >> > >> >>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>> +1 for reload4j. >> > >> >>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>> Regards, >> > >> >>>>>>> Pankaj >> > >> >>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 2:39 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) < >> > >> >> palomino...@gmail.com >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>>> wrote: >> > >> >>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>> Already filed HBASE-26691. >> > >> >>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>> Wei-Chiu Chuang <weic...@apache.org> 于2022年1月21日周五 16:53写道： >> > >> >>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> +1 I am doing the same in Hadoop. >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:51 PM Viraj Jasani < >> > >> >> vjas...@apache.org> >> > >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> +1 for Reload4J migration in active release branches. >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Purtell < >> > >> >>>>>>>>> andrew.purt...@gmail.com> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> +1 for migrating to Reload4J. It is binary and >> configuration >> > >> >>>>>>>> compatible >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> with log4j 1 so meets our compatibility guidelines. >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> If this is an agreeable plan I can make the changes in a >> PR >> > >> >> and >> > >> >>> we >> > >> >>>>>>>> can >> > >> >>>>>>>>> do >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> a round of new releases. >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2022, at 10:16 PM, Duo Zhang < >> > zhang...@apache.org >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>>>>>>> wrote: >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On master we have already migrated to log4j2, but for >> all >> > >> >>> other >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> release >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> lines we are still on log4j1. >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Recently there are several new CVEs for log4j1, so I >> think >> > we >> > >> >>>>>>>> should >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> also >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> address them for release lines other than master. >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> One possible solution is to also migrate log4j2 but use >> > >> >> log4j12 >> > >> >>>>>>>>> bridge >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> to >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> maintain the compatibility, but we have already known >> that >> > >> >>>>>>> log4j12 >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> bridge >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> can not work perfectly with hadoop, as hadoop has some >> > >> >>> customized >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> log4j1 >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> appender implementations, which inherit some log4j1 >> > appenders >> > >> >>>>>>> which >> > >> >>>>>>>>> are >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> not >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> part of the log4j12 bridge. >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Reload4j is a fork of the log4j1 and has fixed the >> critical >> > >> >>> CVEs, >> > >> >>>>>>>> so >> > >> >>>>>>>>> it >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> is >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> less hurt to replace log4j with reload4j. >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestions are welcomed. >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. Regards >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> > >> >> Best regards, >> > >> >> Andrew >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - >> > >> >> It's what we’ve earned >> > >> >> Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? >> > >> >> Bring us the fitting end that we’ve been counting on >> > >> >> - A23, Welcome, Apocalypse >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Andrew >> >> Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - >> It's what we’ve earned >> Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? >> Bring us the fitting end that we’ve been counting on >> - A23, Welcome, Apocalypse >> >
