Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bug 2294110: CVE-2024-6104 cephcsi-container: go-retryablehttp: url might write sensitive information to log file #330

Conversation

iPraveenParihar
Copy link
Member

@iPraveenParihar iPraveenParihar commented Jul 1, 2024

Bumps github.com/hashicorp/go-retryablehttp from 0.7.1 to 0.7.7.


updated-dependencies:

  • dependency-name: github.com/hashicorp/go-retryablehttp dependency-type: indirect ...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] [email protected]
(cherry picked from commit 2131a84)

Describe what this PR does

Provide some context for the reviewer

Is there anything that requires special attention

Do you have any questions?

Is the change backward compatible?

Are there concerns around backward compatibility?

Provide any external context for the change, if any.

For example:

  • Kubernetes links that explain why the change is required
  • CSI spec related changes/catch-up that necessitates this patch
  • golang related practices that necessitates this change

Related issues

Mention any github issues relevant to this PR. Adding below line
will help to auto close the issue once the PR is merged.

Fixes: #issue_number

Future concerns

List items that are not part of the PR and do not impact it's
functionality, but are work items that can be taken up subsequently.

Checklist:

  • Commit Message Formatting: Commit titles and messages follow guidelines in the developer guide.
  • Reviewed the developer guide on Submitting a Pull Request
  • Pending release
    notes

    updated with breaking and/or notable changes for the next major release.
  • Documentation has been updated, if necessary.
  • Unit tests have been added, if necessary.
  • Integration tests have been added, if necessary.

Show available bot commands

These commands are normally not required, but in case of issues, leave any of
the following bot commands in an otherwise empty comment in this PR:

  • /retest ci/centos/<job-name>: retest the <job-name> after unrelated
    failure (please report the failure too!)

Bumps [github.com/hashicorp/go-retryablehttp](https://github.com/hashicorp/go-retryablehttp) from 0.7.1 to 0.7.7.
- [Changelog](https://github.com/hashicorp/go-retryablehttp/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md)
- [Commits](hashicorp/go-retryablehttp@v0.7.1...v0.7.7)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: github.com/hashicorp/go-retryablehttp
  dependency-type: indirect
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 2131a84)
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 1, 2024

@iPraveenParihar: No Bugzilla bug is referenced in the title of this pull request.
To reference a bug, add 'Bug XXX:' to the title of this pull request and request another bug refresh with /bugzilla refresh.

In response to this:

Bug 2294110 - CVE-2024-6104 cephcsi-container: go-retryablehttp: url might write sensitive information to log file

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Its a good idea label Jul 1, 2024
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 1, 2024

@iPraveenParihar: No Bugzilla bug is referenced in the title of this pull request.
To reference a bug, add 'Bug XXX:' to the title of this pull request and request another bug refresh with /bugzilla refresh.

In response to this:

Bug 2294110 - CVE-2024-6104 cephcsi-container: go-retryablehttp: url might write sensitive information to log file

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@Madhu-1 Madhu-1 changed the title Bug 2294110 - CVE-2024-6104 cephcsi-container: go-retryablehttp: url might write sensitive information to log file Bug 2294110: CVE-2024-6104 cephcsi-container: go-retryablehttp: url might write sensitive information to log file Jul 1, 2024
@Madhu-1
Copy link
Member

Madhu-1 commented Jul 1, 2024

@iPraveenParihar please check CI failures.

Since CentOS Stream 8 is EOL, this commit updates the
config to use vault.centos.org for CentOS Stream 8.
This should be removed once the base image (ceph) is
updated to a version with a newer CentOS.

Signed-off-by: Praveen M <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 5809628)
@Madhu-1
Copy link
Member

Madhu-1 commented Jul 1, 2024

/bugzilla refresh

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 1, 2024

@Madhu-1: Bugzilla bug 2294110 is in a bug group that is not in the allowed groups for this repo.
Allowed groups for this repo are:

  • qe_staff
  • redhat

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

Madhu-1 and others added 2 commits July 1, 2024 16:54
The tests are failing due to missing
ruby-devel package in the base image

Signed-off-by: Madhu Rajanna <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 90c6be0)
Signed-off-by: Praveen M <[email protected]>
@iPraveenParihar
Copy link
Member Author

golangci-lint fails at

internal/cephfs/store/volumeoptions.go:154:1: receiver name v should be consistent with previous receiver name vo for VolumeOptions (golint)

@Madhu-1, Can we ignore this failure?

@Madhu-1
Copy link
Member

Madhu-1 commented Jul 1, 2024

golangci-lint fails at

internal/cephfs/store/volumeoptions.go:154:1: receiver name v should be consistent with previous receiver name vo for VolumeOptions (golint)

@Madhu-1, Can we ignore this failure?

we have this error only in 4.16? was there any changes done to fix this problem? or linter is updated to a new version?

@iPraveenParihar
Copy link
Member Author

golangci-lint fails at

internal/cephfs/store/volumeoptions.go:154:1: receiver name v should be consistent with previous receiver name vo for VolumeOptions (golint)

@Madhu-1, Can we ignore this failure?

FYI, #303 (comment)

@Madhu-1
Copy link
Member

Madhu-1 commented Jul 1, 2024

okay, LGTM, once the bot is fixed we can merge this one.

@nixpanic
Copy link
Member

nixpanic commented Jul 2, 2024

I don't think golangci-lint is a blocker, it failed on previous PRs in release-4.16 as well, see #303.

@nixpanic
Copy link
Member

nixpanic commented Jul 2, 2024

/bugzilla refresh

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 2, 2024

@nixpanic: Bugzilla bug 2294110 is in a bug group that is not in the allowed groups for this repo.
Allowed groups for this repo are:

  • qe_staff
  • redhat

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@nixpanic
Copy link
Member

nixpanic commented Jul 2, 2024

This bugzilla checks should pass once openshift/release#53900 is merged and deployed.

@nixpanic
Copy link
Member

nixpanic commented Jul 2, 2024

/bugzilla refresh

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 2, 2024

@nixpanic: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2294110, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "ODF 4.16.0" release, but it targets "---" instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@iPraveenParihar
Copy link
Member Author

/bugzilla refresh

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 30, 2024

@iPraveenParihar: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2294110, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "ODF 4.16.1" release, but it targets "---" instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@iPraveenParihar
Copy link
Member Author

/bugzilla refresh

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 6, 2024

@iPraveenParihar: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2294110, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "ODF 4.16.1" release, but it targets "ODF 4.17.0" instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@iPraveenParihar
Copy link
Member Author

/bugzilla refresh

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 13, 2024

@iPraveenParihar: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2294110, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "ODF 4.16.1" release, but it targets "---" instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@iPraveenParihar
Copy link
Member Author

/bugzilla refresh

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 21, 2024

@iPraveenParihar: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2294110, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "ODF 4.16.1" release, but it targets "ODF 4.17.0" instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@iPraveenParihar
Copy link
Member Author

/bugzilla refresh

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 2, 2024

@iPraveenParihar: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2294110, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (ODF 4.16.2) matches configured target release for branch (ODF 4.16.2)
  • bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @keesturam

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 2, 2024

@openshift-ci[bot]: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: keesturam.

Note that only red-hat-storage members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

@iPraveenParihar: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2294110, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (ODF 4.16.2) matches configured target release for branch (ODF 4.16.2)
  • bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @keesturam

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@iPraveenParihar iPraveenParihar requested review from Rakshith-R and Madhu-1 and removed request for Rakshith-R September 2, 2024 06:53
@Rakshith-R
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
/approve

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Code looks good label Sep 2, 2024
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 2, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: iPraveenParihar, Rakshith-R

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
  • OWNERS [Rakshith-R,iPraveenParihar]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 0eefc0d into red-hat-storage:release-4.16 Sep 2, 2024
9 of 10 checks passed
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 2, 2024

@iPraveenParihar: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Bugzilla bug 2294110 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 2294110: CVE-2024-6104 cephcsi-container: go-retryablehttp: url might write sensitive information to log file

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants