Thank you for providing a PR, will review on Monday. On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 5:16 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > >> > > > -- 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
