Il mar 1 ott 2019, 10:38 Andor Molnar <[email protected]> ha scritto:

> Backporting Netty 4 would be a huge, cumbersome task, I hope we don’t have
> to do it.
>

Yes, 3.4 is mature and stable and closed for refactors.


> However I had a quick look at the details of this CVE and it seems to me
> that it only affects the HTTP codec:
>
> https://github.com/netty/netty/commit/39cafcb05c99f2aa9fce7e6597664c9ed6a63a95
>
> Can’t we just say 3.4.14 is not affected?
> We’re not running HTTP server inside ZooKeeper.
>
> Otherwise we might be able to release 3.6.0-alpha1 now, put a date for 3.4
> EOL and highlight on the webpage that this
>

Please do not start an 'alpha' story like for 3.5....

CVE probably won’t be resolved on that branch, please upgrade to 3.5.
>

+1


Enrico

>
> As a third option we could ask Norman to kindly fix 3.10.6.Final as well…
> or submit a PR ourselves, it doesn’t seem to me a big deal.
>

Not so useful

>
> What do you think?
>
> Andor
>
>
>
>
> > On 2019. Oct 1., at 2:00, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I pushed patches for 3.5 and trunk and the tests passed on my mac.
> However
> > 3.4 is using netty 3.10.6.Final and as such it's not a simple upgrade.
> > (there are no fixes against 3.10 for this CVE, at least not so far) Not
> > sure what we want to do about this... someone would need to backport the
> > netty 4.1 changes into 3.4 afaict.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:08 PM Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'll work on it today.
> >>
> >> Patrick
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:59 AM Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Okay
> >>>
> >>> I am cancelling the release.
> >>>
> >>> I have a problem with my box, I can't work on netty upgrade.
> >>>
> >>> Any volounteer?
> >>>
> >>> Enrico
> >>>
> >>> Il lun 30 set 2019, 20:32 Andor Molnar <[email protected]> ha scritto:
> >>>
> >>>> The good news is: we need to release 3.4.15 too. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Andor
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 2019. Sep 30., at 20:26, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> created: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3563
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:20 AM Patrick Hunt <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -1 - when I run dependency check on the release candidate artifact
> >>> it's
> >>>>>> failing with:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [ERROR] netty-transport-4.1.29.Final.jar: CVE-2019-16869
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I ran this on trunk and it's passing, as such it must be an issue
> >>> with
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> the 3.5.6 netty version specifically. It's listed as a high, we
> >>> should
> >>>>>> patch this as well before releasing.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Patrick
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 7:29 AM Enrico Olivelli <
> [email protected]
> >>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is a bugfix release candidate for 3.5.6.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It fixes 28 issues, including upgrade of third party libraries,
> >>>>>>> TTL Node APIs for C API, support for PCKS12 Keystores, and better
> >>>>>>> procedure
> >>>>>>> for the upgrade of servers from 3.4 to 3.5.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The full release notes is available at:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310801&version=12345243
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *** Please download, test and vote by October 2nd 2019, 23:59
> UTC+0.
> >>>> ***
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Source files:
> >>>>>>> https://people.apache.org/~eolivelli/zookeeper-3.5.6-candidate-2
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Maven staging repo:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachezookeeper-1042/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The release candidate tag in git to be voted upon:
> release-3.5.6-rc2
> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/tree/release-3.5.6-rc2
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ZooKeeper's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
> >>> release:
> >>>>>>> https://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Should we release this candidate?
> >>>>>>> Enrico Olivelli
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to