Re: [OE-core][whinlatter 04/11] python3-urllib3: patch

Paul Barker
2026-01-07T14:05:56Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2303 bytes --]

On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 13:47 +0100, Yoann Congal wrote:
>
> Le 07/01/2026 à 13:32, Paul Barker a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 12:19 +0000, Marko, Peter wrote:
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Paul Barker <paul@pbarker.dev>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 12:49
> > > > To: yoann.congal@smile.fr; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org;
> > > > Marko, Peter (FT D EU SK BFS1) <Peter.Marko@siemens.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [OE-core][whinlatter 04/11] python3-urllib3: patch
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 09:08 +0100, Yoann Congal via
> > > > lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > > > > From: Peter Marko <peter.marko@siemens.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Pick patch per [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-66471
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Marko <peter.marko@siemens.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > .../python3-urllib3/CVE-2025-66471.patch | 930 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > .../python/python3-urllib3_2.5.0.bb | 1 +
> > > > > 2 files changed, 931 insertions(+)
> > > > > create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/python/python3-urllib3/CVE-2025-
> > > > 66471.patch
> > > >
> > > > This seems like a very large patch for a CVE issue. The changelog entry
> > > > in the patch also says that the API of urllib3.response.ContentDecoder
> > > > is changed.
> > > >
> > > > We should look for a narrower fix, and only take this if there is no
> > > > other option.
> > >
> > > I originally didn't want to patch this CVE due to this reason (and didn't patch it in kirkstone).
> > > But since this has landed in scarthgap, I decided for the same in whinlatter for consistency.
> > > Should we revert it from scartghap?
> >
> > I don't think we need to rush to a decision.
>
> On my side, I need to do the whinlatter 5.3.1 release build on Monday.
> I propose to set this patch aside to not block the release and the other
> patches.

Agreed.

> For scarthgap, we can revert the current fix and add the "proper" fix
> when we have it. I'd rather avoid a patched->applicable transition on a CVE.

We don't need to do this immediately, let's take a little time to think
and see if others have any thoughts.

Best regards,

--
Paul Barker

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]