[Bug 2167829] New: [RFE: EPEL9] EPEL9 branch for luarocks
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2167829
Bug ID: 2167829
Summary: [RFE: EPEL9] EPEL9 branch for luarocks
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: luarocks
Assignee: michel(a)michel-slm.name
Reporter: riehecky(a)fnal.gov
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: epel-packagers-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
ktdreyer(a)ktdreyer.com,
lua-packagers-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
michel(a)michel-slm.name
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
Can luarocks be branched for EPEL9?
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual results:
Expected results:
Additional info:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2167829
2 weeks, 3 days
[Bug 2064772] New: CVE-2021-44964 lua: use after free allows Sandbox Escape
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2064772
Bug ID: 2064772
Summary: CVE-2021-44964 lua: use after free allows Sandbox
Escape
Product: Security Response
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: vulnerability
Keywords: Security
Severity: high
Priority: high
Assignee: security-response-team(a)redhat.com
Reporter: pdelbell(a)redhat.com
CC: 4le(a)live.com, caswilli(a)redhat.com,
csutherl(a)redhat.com, drjohnson1(a)gmail.com,
fedora(a)famillecollet.com, fjansen(a)redhat.com,
gzaronik(a)redhat.com, hdegoede(a)redhat.com,
jburrell(a)redhat.com, jclere(a)redhat.com,
jwon(a)redhat.com, kaycoth(a)redhat.com,
krathod(a)redhat.com,
lua-packagers-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
mhroncok(a)redhat.com, michel(a)michel-slm.name,
moceap(a)hotmail.com, mschmidt(a)redhat.com,
mturk(a)redhat.com, packaging-team-maint(a)redhat.com,
pjindal(a)redhat.com, rob.myers(a)gtri.gatech.edu,
spotrh(a)gmail.com, szappis(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Other
Use after free in garbage collector and finalizer of lgc.c in Lua interpreter
5.4.0~5.4.3 allows attackers to perform Sandbox Escape via a crafted script
file.
References:
http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2021-44964
https://github.com/Lua-Project/lua-5.4.4-sandbox-escape-with-new-vulnerab...
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-44964
http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2021-12/msg00007.html
http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2021-12/msg00015.html
http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2021-12/msg00030.html
http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2021-11/msg00186.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2064772
3 weeks, 5 days
[Bug 2047672] New: CVE-2021-43519 lua: stack overflow in lua_resume of ldo.c allows a DoS via a crafted script file
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047672
Bug ID: 2047672
Summary: CVE-2021-43519 lua: stack overflow in lua_resume of
ldo.c allows a DoS via a crafted script file
Product: Security Response
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: vulnerability
Keywords: Security
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: security-response-team(a)redhat.com
Reporter: mrehak(a)redhat.com
CC: 4le(a)live.com, bdettelb(a)redhat.com,
caswilli(a)redhat.com, csutherl(a)redhat.com,
drjohnson1(a)gmail.com, fjansen(a)redhat.com,
gzaronik(a)redhat.com, jburrell(a)redhat.com,
jclere(a)redhat.com, jwon(a)redhat.com,
kaycoth(a)redhat.com, krathod(a)redhat.com,
lua-packagers-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
mhroncok(a)redhat.com, michel(a)michel-slm.name,
mturk(a)redhat.com, packaging-team-maint(a)redhat.com,
pjindal(a)redhat.com, rob.myers(a)gtri.gatech.edu,
spotrh(a)gmail.com, szappis(a)redhat.com,
tkasparek(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Other
Stack overflow in lua_resume of ldo.c in Lua Interpreter allows attackers to
perform a Denial of Service via a crafted script file.
Reference:
http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2021-11/msg00015.html
http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2021-10/msg00123.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047672
2 months, 3 weeks
[Bug 2143050] Review Request: lua-zlib - Simple streaming interface to zlib for Lua
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143050
Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |pemensik(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2143050-lua-
zlib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: lua-zlib-1.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
lua-zlib-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
lua-zlib-debugsource-1.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
lua-zlib-1.2-1.fc39.src.rpm
========================================== rpmlint session starts
=========================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpk0cwb_u9')]
checks: 31, packages: 4
lua-zlib.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/lua-zlib/README
/usr/share/doc/lua-zlib/README
=========== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0
badness; has taken 0.4 s ==========
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: lua-zlib-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
========================================== rpmlint session starts
=========================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdg856fkn')]
checks: 31, packages: 1
=========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0
badness; has taken 0.1 s ==========
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 3
lua-zlib.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/lua/5.4/zlib.so
/lib64/libm.so.6
lua-zlib.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/lua-zlib/README
/usr/share/doc/lua-zlib/README
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.6 s
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
lua-zlib: /usr/lib64/lua/5.4/zlib.so
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/brimworks/lua-zlib/archive/v1.2/lua-zlib-1.2.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
26b813ad39c94fc930b168c3418e2e746af3b2e80b92f94f306f6f954cc31e7d
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
26b813ad39c94fc930b168c3418e2e746af3b2e80b92f94f306f6f954cc31e7d
Requires
--------
lua-zlib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
liblua-5.4.so()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2)(64bit)
lua(abi)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
lua-zlib-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
lua-zlib-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
lua-zlib:
lua-zlib
lua-zlib(x86-64)
lua-zlib-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
lua-zlib-debuginfo
lua-zlib-debuginfo(x86-64)
lua-zlib-debugsource:
lua-zlib-debugsource
lua-zlib-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143050
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Java, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, fonts,
Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143050
2 months, 3 weeks