On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 4:11 PM Ben Beasley <c...@musicinmybrain.net> wrote:
> This email proposes upgrading the llhttp package in EPEL9 from 6.0.10 to > 8.1.1, which would break the ABI and bump the SONAME version, under the > EPEL Incompatible Upgrades Policy[1]. > > The llhttp package is a C library (transpiled from TypeScript) that > provides the low-level HTTP support for NodeJS and for python-aiohttp. > Currently, only python-aiohttp depends on the llhttp package in EPEL9. > > Versions of llhttp prior to 8.1.1 are affected by CVE-2023-30589[2], an > HTTP request smuggling vulnerability rated 7.7 HIGH in CVSS v3 and rated > Moderate by Red Hat. The GitHub advisory for llhttp is > GHSA-cggh-pq45-6h9x[3]; the advisory for python-aiohttp is > GHSA-45c4-8wx5-qw6w[4]. Upstream for python-aiohttp fixed this by > updating llhttp (which they bundle, but we unbundle) in release 3.8.5. > > I am not comfortable attempting to backport the fix to an older release > of llhttp. My preferred solution would be to update llhttp to 8.1.1[5] > and (in the same side tag) update python-aiohttp to 3.8.5[6]. The ABI > break in llhttp would only affect python-aiohttp; the python-aiohttp > update itself is compatible (by upstream intent, and verified in > COPR[7]); and a number of packages that depend on python-aiohttp would > benefit from the fix. > > If this exception request is not approved, my fallback plan is to > propose rebuilding python-aiohttp in EPEL9 with AIOHTTP_NO_EXTENSIONS=1, > which would convert it to a pure-Python package. This is a documented > mitigation, but comes with potentially serious performance regressions, > again affecting a number of dependent packages. The llhttp package would > become a leaf package and would remain unpatched. > > The same incompatible update was approved by FESCo for Fedora 37[8]. > > The purpose of this email is to document and explain the proposed > update, to begin the minimum one-week discussion period mandated by the > EPEL Incompatible Upgrades Policy, and to request that the update be > added to the agenda for an upcoming EPEL meeting. > > [1] > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/#process_for_incompatible_upgrades > > [2] https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2023-30589 > > [3] https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-cggh-pq45-6h9x > > [4] > https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/security/advisories/GHSA-45c4-8wx5-qw6w > > [5] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/llhttp/pull-request/14 > > [6] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-aiohttp/pull-request/26 > > [7] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/aiohttp-epel9/packages/ > > [8] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3049 Thank you for the nice write-up. I have created an EPEL issue. Not really for discussion but more for voting and make sure this is on the meeting agendas. https://pagure.io/epel/issue/241 Troy
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
