Re: [OE-core] [dunfell][PATCH] glib-2.0: Rename patch file for CVE-2020-35457

["Anatol Belski" <anbelski@linux.microsoft.com>]

Hi,

On 2/3/2021 3:38 PM, Steve Sakoman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 12:02 AM Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@bmw.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 08:42:57AM +0000, Anatol Belski wrote:
>>> The naming convention needs to be help so the CVE is recognized as
>>> fixed by the tooling.
>> Yocto CVE checker does detect CVE patches also from patch comments so
>> this change is not needed for that. This is sufficient:
>>
>> poky$ git grep CVE-2020-35457
>> meta/recipes-core/glib-2.0/glib-2.0/0001-goption-Add-a-precondition-to-avoid-GOptionEntry-lis.patch:CVE: CVE-2020-35457
> Yes, we are detecting the CVE patch from the patch comment.
>
> However our CVE patch guidelines do request that the patch be named
> with the CVE as the name:
>
> https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Security
>
> (in the "Patch name convention and commit message" section)
>
> I'm sorry I didn't catch this when I merged this earlier.  I always
> check the patch itself for the CVE tag, but I missed the name.  So I'm
> happy to take this patch just to clean up the metadata and make it
> easy to see that this is a CVE patch.

Thanks for pointing this out. On my side, I also always check this one

https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines

There's no explicit mention on the filename, but I guess i sure read the 
other page, too. Perhaps the effort would be better put adding a word on 
the wiki, that the filename is not really relevant. And otherwise, seems 
there's nothing to fix other than my habit on seeing the filename to be 
same as CVE :)

Thanks!

Anatol

> Steve
>
>> Is there some other tooling that you are referring to?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -Mikko
>> 
>>