On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:20 AM Dave Dykstra via epel-devel <epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > DT is correct, this change is subject to the EPEL incompatible change > policy. apptainer-suid-1.1.8 by default disables mounting of ext3 > filesystems, because of CVE-2023-30549 > https://github.com/apptainer/apptainer/security/advisories/GHSA-j4rf-7357-f4cg > Most users don't use this feature, but a significant minority does. > Apptainer has a non-setuid alternative for the same functionality if > unprivileged user namespaces are available. > > The summary of the CVE is that the way that apptainer & singularity > allow mounts of ext3 filesystems in setuid mode raises the severity of > many ext4 filesystem CVEs (ext3 filesystems are implemented by the ext4 > driver). OS vendors consider those CVEs to be low or moderate priority > because they assume that users do not have write access to the > underlying bits of the filesystem, but apptainer/singularity setuid mode > gives that access to users by default (before this release of apptainer). > Since vendors don't see urgency to patch low/moderate CVEs, it can take > a very long time for them to patch them and in fact RHEL7 is not patched > for one in particular. All this information came from a reliable source, > the owner of the ext4 kernel driver. The Red Hat CVSS score for CVE-2022-1184 has the same breakdown as the NVD CVSS score. Both rate the "privileges required" property as low. >From what I can tell that property would be rated high if they considered root privileges to be required. How does apptainer's use of setuid change anything here? > > I am sorry to see that I have already done one step too many according > to the incompatible changes policy, and have made the release available > to epel-testing. However, I think it's important to make it available > that way for system administrators to install early. The large High > Energy Physics community that I represent has security teams that want > to be able to notify their site administrators to upgrade to respond to > this high severity CVE, and it would be so much better if the > announcement they send can say to install from epel-testing rather than > having to provide URLs to download from koji. You can't just ignore the policy because you feel it's important to make a particular update available quickly. If you feel the policy needs to allow for things to be done in that order, propose a change to the policy. I don't consider it a good idea, because if the committee denies the update you have to do a revert commit and possibly even add/increment an epoch to provide a correct upgrade path to all users. If you have a build you're not sure will be allowed in EPEL, but you want to provide it quickly on an opt-in basis, I suggest using copr instead. If the update is approved you can increment the release for the official EPEL build to have a clean upgrade path from the copr build back to the EPEL build. > > So, to the EPEL Steering Committee members: must I unpublish this update > from testing, or may I leave it there and send an announcement to > epel-announce that it is there and pending approval by the committee? > The bodhi settings are set so they won't get auto-updated by karma or > time. We discussed this earlier today at the Steering Committee meeting. No one seemed to have an issue with allowing these updates to stay in the testing repo until we vote on it next week. Next time, follow the policy steps correctly. > > And another question: should I submit an epel ticket for this? The > policy doesn't mention that. > > Dave > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 09:41:16AM +0100, David Trudgian wrote: > > Subject: Re: apptainer 1.1.8-1 appears to be an incompatible upgrade for apptainer-suid users > > > > Hello, > > > > The maintainer of the apptainer package has submitted updates to version 1.1.8-1 against epel-testing: > > > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-18a0e3fa23 > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-44ff2475c4 > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-b31211e2ce > > > > I believe that the update should be considered an incompatible upgrade, requiring the incompatible upgrades policy to be followed, as it significantly changes behaviour for users who have the apptainer-setuid sub-package installed. > > > > The update now disallows, by default, workflows that involve ext format container images and overlays: > > > > ``` > > # Before update > > $ apptainer exec sif-overlay.sif /bin/date > > Wed Apr 26 09:12:37 BST 2023 > > > > # Update to the testing package > > $ sudo dnf update --enablerepo=epel-testing apptainer-suid > > > > # After update > > $ apptainer exec sif-overlay.sif /bin/date > > FATAL: configuration disallows users from mounting SIF extfs partition in setuid mode, try --userns > > ``` > > > > I understand that the update is related to a security issue that upstream has published: > > > > CVE-2023-30549 - https://github.com/apptainer/apptainer/security/advisories/GHSA-j4rf-7357-f4cg > > > > However, I don't think this exempts the update from the incompatible upgrades policy? > > > > I'd also like to note that CVE-2023-30549 is dependent on and potentially a duplicate of CVE-2022-1184, which has been patched in EL8 and EL9, but admittedly not in EL7. > > > > Thanks, > > > > DT > > > > > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- Carl George _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
