On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 4:11 PM Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
I have created an EPEL issue. Not really for discussion but more for voting and make sure this is on the meeting agendas.
Troy
_______________________________________________ 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
