devel July 2021

devel@lists.centos.org

38 participants
30 discussions

Two directories for 8.4.2105 and 8-stream in the centos mirrors
by Burn Alting 08 Jul '21

08 Jul '21

Recently, it appears that two directories for 8.4 and 8-stream are being distributed in the Centos mirrors. You can't see it if you view the mirrors, but if one downloads the filelist.gz file and grep for '^\.\/\.' one will see the directories, with content, .8.4.2105 and .8-stream. Can this be explained? An error or a new distribution concept?? If the latter, then this may have an impact on those who have off-line repos which they manually rebuild. Rgds

4 5

[CloudSIG] CentOS Cloud SIG meeting minutes (2021-07-08)
by Alfredo Moralejo Alonso 08 Jul '21

08 Jul '21

====================================================== #centos-meeting: CentOS Cloud SIG meeting (2021-07-08) ====================================================== Meeting started by amoralej at 15:10:26 UTC. The full logs are available athttps://www.centos.org/minutes/2021/July/centos-meeting.2021-07-08-15.10.… . Meeting summary --------------- * roll call (amoralej, 15:10:39) * for CentOS Stream 9 (amoralej, 15:11:38) * LINK: https://blog.centos.org/2021/07/centos-community-newsletter-july-2021/ (amoralej, 15:11:56) * Cloud images are coming in the next month or so (amoralej, 15:12:46) * Signed packages are coming in the next month or so (amoralej, 15:13:16) * Publishing to the mirrors will happen later this quarter (amoralej, 15:13:41) * LINK: https://releases.openstack.org/xena/schedule.html (amoralej, 15:14:47) * LINK: https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/runtimes/xena… (amoralej, 15:17:54) * ACTION: amoralej to send mail to centos-devel about CBS availability of CS9 buildroots (amoralej, 15:24:19) * ACTION: amoralej to send a mail to openstack-discuss and rdo lists with our plans (amoralej, 15:24:58) * open floor (amoralej, 15:31:55) * meeting cadence (amoralej, 15:32:42) * AGREED: to change meeting cadence to first week of each month at this same time (amoralej, 15:36:50) * ACTION: spotz update calendar and documentation for monthly (first week) (spotz, 15:39:33) Meeting ended at 15:59:32 UTC. Action Items ------------ * amoralej to send mail to centos-devel about CBS availability of CS9 buildroots * amoralej to send a mail to openstack-discuss and rdo lists with our plans * spotz update calendar and documentation for monthly (first week) Action Items, by person ----------------------- * amoralej * amoralej to send mail to centos-devel about CBS availability of CS9 buildroots * amoralej to send a mail to openstack-discuss and rdo lists with our plans * spotz * spotz update calendar and documentation for monthly (first week) * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * amoralej (96) * spotz (21) * jcapitao (19) * centbot (5) * jpena (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

[Cloud] Cloud SiG Meeting today at 15:00 UTC
by Amy Marrich 08 Jul '21

08 Jul '21

Just a reminder and an invitation to join us today at the Cloud SiG meeting on Libera in the centos-meeting room. On the agenda[0] for today is how the CCcentOS Stream 9 schedule will affect the timing of the RDO Xena release of OpenStack. Thanks, Aamy (spotz) 0 - https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/centos-cloud-sig *Amy Marrich* She/Her/Hers Principal Technical Marketing Manager - Cloud Platforms Red Hat, Inc <https://www.redhat.com/> amy(a)redhat.com Mobile: 954-818-0514 Slack: amarrich IRC: spotz <https://www.redhat.com/>

1 0

Bringing glibc 2.34 snapshots to Fedora 35 and CentOS Stream 9
by Florian Weimer 07 Jul '21

07 Jul '21

TL;DR: glibc 2.34 snapshots are coming. libpthread as a separate library creates problems, so we are removing it. There may be some hickups. Full updates with “dnf update” are recommended. We expect that we will soon be able to import glibc upstream snapshots regularly into Fedora 35 and CentOS Stream 9. We did such regular imports for the past couple of Fedora rawhide releases, but the situation will be slightly different, as explained below. The snapshots will also land in CentOS Stream 9, after a delay as the result of a different testing pipeline. glibc 2.33 and earlier accidentally provided an very generic ROP gadget in the statically linked startup code that is present in every program (even dynamically linked ones). We have removed the ROP gadget and moved that particular initialization code into the dynamically linked part, but that means that the interface between the startup code and the dynamically loaded glibc parts had to change. As a result, any program linked against glibc 2.34 will not run with glibc 2.33 or any earlier version. (Some of you may remember the memcpy(a)GLIBC_2.14 issue, it was similar.) This version requirement will be properly reflected in RPM dependencies. glibc 2.34 removes libpthread as a separate library. This is based on the observation that most processes load libpthread anyway. (On this system, I count 141 out of 159 processes that load libpthread.) One particularly thorny issue is that certain NSS modules depend on libpthread, and if the main program is not linked (indirectly) against libpthread, loading such NSS modules effectively loads libpthread via dlopen, which is something that glibc has never supported well. Furthermore, the availability of some pthread_* functions without -lpthread has been a source of confusion to developers, resulting in both overlinking and underlinking. We started the libpthread transition in glibc 2.33 when we added the __libc_single_threaded variable as a replacement for the weak symbol hacks that some libraries use to detect single-threaded processes. (For example, libstdc++ used to do this to avoid using atomic instructions in std::shared_ptr.) Backwards compatibility for dynamically linked binaries should be preserved (as usual), but we know of one issue on ppc64le, where the weak symbol hacks resulted in slightly corrupt binaries. Upstream glibc did not accept the proposed backwards compatibility enhancement so far. Instead, we will rebuild affected distribution binaries with a binutils version which handles weak symbols slightly differently, avoiding the corruption. As we plan to perform these rebuilds before the new glibc lands in the buildroot, the requirement to upgrade to the new binaries before or at the same time of the upgrade to the glibc upstream snapshot will NOT be reflected in RPM dependencies. A full upgrade using “dnf update” will work, however. In addition to the removal of libpthread, I also hope to remove libdl and librt. This means that new GLIBC_2.34 symbols will be added to libc.so.6 (e.g., timer_create(a)GLIBC_2.34) The librt removal in particular will probably not land with the first imported snapshot. This is unfortunate because RPM does not have a way to express this: there's just a blanket Provides: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.34), which will already be included in the first snapshot that adds the symbol __lib_start_main@@GLIBC_2.34 (whether or not the RPM package includes timer_create(a)GLIBC_2.34 as well). Some tools in the fedpkg/centpkg/mock sphere try to install builds from the Koji buildroot into installations from composes, without upgrading everything to the current buildroot, so it's possible that glibc won't be upgraded to match the requirements of RPMs directly imported from the buildroot. Developers encountered similar issues with glibc snapshot imports (e.g., around the symbol pthread_getattr_np). Our RPM infrastructure does not have per-symbol dependencies, so there isn't much we can do about it at the packaging level. It's a transitory issue during rawhide/CentOS Stream 9 development; the finished release will add all GLIBC_2.34 symbols in one upgrade, so end users won't see it in a Fedora 34 to Fedora 35 upgrade or a CentOS Stream 8 to CentOS Stream 9 upgrade. We think there is value in providing access to these snapshots early, and will try to make the transitions as smooth as possible, within the constraints outlined above. Thanks, Florian

1 1

Case study: libxml2 CVE fixes in the Red Hat ecosystem
by Carl George 02 Jul '21

02 Jul '21

Since the announcement of the CentOS Linux 8 EOL date in December, I've noticed there has been confusion about how CVE fixes work in CentOS Stream 8. Recently there have been some CVE fixes for the libxml2 package, and I took the opportunity to examine how these fixes flowed through the Red Hat ecosystem. Here are the relevant CVE identifiers and their CVSS v3 scores. CVE-2021-3516 - 7.8 [0] CVE-2021-3517 - 8.6 [1] CVE-2021-3518 - 8.6 [2] CVE-2021-3537 - 7.5 [3] CVE-2021-3541 - 6.5 [4] Here is a timeline of notable events. 2021-05-07 * libxml2-2.9.10-12.fc34 [5] was submitted for Fedora 34, which included fixes for the first four CVEs. 2021-05-10 * libxml2-2.9.10-12.fc34 [5] was released for Fedora 34, fixing the first four CVEs. 2021-05-13 * All five CVE fixes were released upstream as part of version 2.9.11 [6]. * libxml2-2.9.12-1.fc34 [7] was submitted for Fedora 34, which included the fix for the fifth CVE. 2021-05-21 * libxml2-2.9.12-2.fc34 [7] was submitted for Fedora 34, which fixed an unrelated upstream regression [8], but also reset the pending update. * libxml2-2.9.7-11.el8 [9] was released for CentOS Stream 8, fixing all five CVEs. This was a backport update that was unaffected by the upstream regression in 2.9.12. 2021-05-24 * libxml2-2.9.12-2.fc34 [7] was released for Fedora 34, fixing the fifth CVE. 2021-06-29 * libxml2-2.9.7-9.el8_4.2 [10] was released for RHEL 8, fixing all five CVEs. Later that day it was rebuilt [11] and released for CentOS Linux 8. This was a backport update that was unaffected by the upstream regression in 2.9.12. It's important to note that these CVE fixes were not part of a security embargo [12]. That is why CentOS Stream 8 was able to provide them before RHEL 8. If these fixes had been part of an embargo, they would have been released for RHEL 8 first (once the embargo was lifted), then CentOS Stream 8 and CentOS Linux 8 immediately after. Another thing I want to point out is that libxml2-2.9.7-11.el8 and libxml2-2.9.7-9.el8_4.2 are effectively identical. They contain the exact same backported CVE fixes. The only difference is the release field. This can be verified in the exported SRPM commits [13][14]. No additional changes were made to the package source between being released for CentOS Stream 8 and being released for RHEL 8. I hope you enjoyed this deep dive into the lifecycle of these CVE fixes. The key takeaway is that CentOS Stream 8 does get security fixes, and usually gets them much sooner than CentOS Linux 8. [0] https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2021-3516 [1] https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2021-3517 [2] https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2021-3518 [3] https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2021-3537 [4] https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2021-3541 [5] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e3ed1ba38b [6] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/xml/2021-May/msg00000.html [7] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e8b7e177a4 [8] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/issues/255 [9] https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=17568 [10] https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2021:2569 [11] https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=18244 [12] https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/security-embargoes-red-hat [13] https://git.centos.org/rpms/libxml2/c/6ce3da4b1430e975a40a538aa250775e101e5… [14] https://git.centos.org/rpms/libxml2/c/bc5a009a460cda9e2392f75fff8bf6edae43e… -- Carl George

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel July 2021