-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 87
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
(PA-6131) Bump openssl version #807
Conversation
966df28
to
68c4951
Compare
Do we have one vanagon generic builder job that tests this PR and includes all platforms for runtime main? |
@cthorn42 , are these platforms sufficient to consider its verified for main or do we need to add some more platforms? |
@amitkarsale can you rebase the PR instead of git pull? For example:
The reason is merge commits clutter up the git history and make things hard to follow later. |
I commented in slack but posting here for visibility. If you're making a change that only affects a few platforms, then it's fine to just test those platforms in your PR. To confirm that's the case use this rake task. The bundle exec rake vanagon:component_diff -- -P agent-runtime-main -p all --from upstream/master --to HEAD If you're bumping a component that contains C/C++ code (like ruby, curl, openssl), then it's better to test all of the platforms from the respective pipeline. For example, in this PR, you're bumping openssl 3.0.13 which is only used in puppet8, so I'd test against all of the Finally, if it's a rubygems bump and that gem doesn't contain native extensions like https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet-runtime/blob/master/configs/components/rubygem-semantic_puppet.rb, then it's fine to just build on one platform like |
Given the code complete deadline, I rebased your PR and triggered generic builder on all |
Generic builder failed.
windows looks like a real failure
When using 3.0.12 on Windows:
|
use Cwd qw/realpath/; | ||
- | ||
+ | ||
+ mkdir $dir unless -d $dir; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This works around the issue, but it seems less than ideal to create a directory as a side effect of calling absolutedir
. It looks like this issue has been fixed upstream already and backported to the 3.0.x branch openssl/openssl@7b3eda5 I'm thinking we should pull in that patch instead.
@amitkarsale given the time schedule, I've pulled your commit into a new PR #814 with the upstream patch, and am testing now. |
Bump open-ssl version from 3.1.12 to 3.1.13 which address following vulnerabilities
NVD - CVE-2023-5678
NVD - CVE-2023-6129
CVE-2023-6237
NVD - CVE-2024-0727