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

add edk2 patches for CVE-2022-36763, CVE-2022-36764, CVE-2022-36765, CVE-2023-45230, CVE-2023-45236, CVE-2023-45232, CVE-2023-45233, CVE-2023-45234, CVE-2023-45235, CVE-2023-45237 #10462

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: fasttrack/2.0
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rmhsawyer
Copy link
Contributor

@rmhsawyer rmhsawyer commented Sep 16, 2024

Merge Checklist

All boxes should be checked before merging the PR (just tick any boxes which don't apply to this PR)

  • The toolchain has been rebuilt successfully (or no changes were made to it)
  • The toolchain/worker package manifests are up-to-date
  • Any updated packages successfully build (or no packages were changed)
  • Packages depending on static components modified in this PR (Golang, *-static subpackages, etc.) have had their Release tag incremented.
  • Package tests (%check section) have been verified with RUN_CHECK=y for existing SPEC files, or added to new SPEC files
  • All package sources are available
  • cgmanifest files are up-to-date and sorted (./cgmanifest.json, ./toolkit/scripts/toolchain/cgmanifest.json, .github/workflows/cgmanifest.json)
  • LICENSE-MAP files are up-to-date (./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/data/licenses.json, ./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/LICENSES-MAP.md, ./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/LICENSE-EXCEPTIONS.PHOTON)
  • All source files have up-to-date hashes in the *.signatures.json files
  • sudo make go-tidy-all and sudo make go-test-coverage pass
  • Documentation has been updated to match any changes to the build system
  • Ready to merge

Summary

What does the PR accomplish, why was it needed?
Fix edk2 CVEs

Change Log
Does this affect the toolchain?

NO

Links to CVEs
Test Methodology
  • Pipeline build id: local package build with RUN_CHECK=y

@rmhsawyer rmhsawyer marked this pull request as ready for review September 16, 2024 23:31
@rmhsawyer rmhsawyer requested a review from a team as a code owner September 16, 2024 23:31
@rmhsawyer rmhsawyer changed the title add Cve patch add edk2 patches for CVE-2022-36763, CVE-2022-36764, CVE-2022-36765 Sep 16, 2024
@rmhsawyer rmhsawyer changed the title add edk2 patches for CVE-2022-36763, CVE-2022-36764, CVE-2022-36765 add edk2 patches for CVE-2022-36763, CVE-2022-36764, CVE-2022-36765, CVE-2023-45230, CVE-2023-45236, CVE-2023-45232, CVE-2023-45233, CVE-2023-45234, CVE-2023-45235, CVE-2023-45237 Sep 17, 2024
Comment on lines 118 to 122
Patch1005: CVE-2022-36763.patch
Patch1006: CVE-2022-36764.patch
Patch1007: CVE-2022-36765.patch
Patch1008: CVE-2023-45230.patch
Patch1009: CVE-2023-45236.patch
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please also update the %prep section to apply the patches. It looks like the patches starting from number 1000 and up are reserved for changes in the CryptoPkg/Library/OpensslLib/openssl directory. You may need to change the patch number, if these fixes are to be applied directly to the main source folder or tweak the steps in the %prep section.

Copy link
Contributor

@PawelWMS PawelWMS left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Need to apply the new .patch files.

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
CVE already patch in CVE-2023-45230.patch
Copy link
Contributor

@PawelWMS PawelWMS Sep 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For the nopatch files, it is now preferable to drop them and either mention all fixed CVEs in the actually applied patch file (CVE-2023-45230.patch in this case) or file a dispute through Astrolabe saying the CVE was fixed in a different patch file.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How would mentioning them work? The tooling wouldn't know we had patched the other CVEs right?

@tobiasb-ms tobiasb-ms self-requested a review September 18, 2024 22:16
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.

3 participants