On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 13:47 +0100, Yoann Congal wrote:
> 
> Le 07/01/2026 à 13:32, Paul Barker a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 12:19 +0000, Marko, Peter wrote:
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Paul Barker <[email protected]>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 12:49
> > > > To: [email protected]; [email protected];
> > > > Marko, Peter (FT D EU SK BFS1) <[email protected]>
> > > > Subject: Re: [OE-core][whinlatter 04/11] python3-urllib3: patch
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 09:08 +0100, Yoann Congal via
> > > > lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > > > > From: Peter Marko <[email protected]>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Pick patch per [1].
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-66471
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Marko <[email protected]>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  .../python3-urllib3/CVE-2025-66471.patch      | 930 
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  .../python/python3-urllib3_2.5.0.bb           |   1 +
> > > > >  2 files changed, 931 insertions(+)
> > > > >  create mode 100644 
> > > > > meta/recipes-devtools/python/python3-urllib3/CVE-2025-
> > > > 66471.patch
> > > > 
> > > > This seems like a very large patch for a CVE issue. The changelog entry
> > > > in the patch also says that the API of urllib3.response.ContentDecoder
> > > > is changed.
> > > > 
> > > > We should look for a narrower fix, and only take this if there is no
> > > > other option.
> > > 
> > > I originally didn't want to patch this CVE due to this reason (and didn't 
> > > patch it in kirkstone).
> > > But since this has landed in scarthgap, I decided for the same in 
> > > whinlatter for consistency.
> > > Should we revert it from scartghap?
> > 
> > I don't think we need to rush to a decision.
> 
> On my side, I need to do the whinlatter 5.3.1 release build on Monday.
> I propose to set this patch aside to not block the release and the other
> patches.

Agreed.

> For scarthgap, we can revert the current fix and add the "proper" fix
> when we have it. I'd rather avoid a patched->applicable transition on a CVE.

We don't need to do this immediately, let's take a little time to think
and see if others have any thoughts.

Best regards,

-- 
Paul Barker

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#229001): 
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/229001
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/117132726/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Reply via email to