June 2023 - Lua Packagers SIG - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 2177239] New: Lua scripts use an unsafe package path

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177239 Bug ID: 2177239 Summary: Lua scripts use an unsafe package path Product: Fedora Version: 37 Status: NEW Component: lua Assignee: spotrh(a)gmail.com Reporter: arstoffel(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: 4le(a)live.com, drjohnson1(a)gmail.com, lua-packagers-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, mhroncok(a)redhat.com, michel(a)michel-slm.name, spotrh(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: By default, Lua allows loading code from the current directory, and Fedora doesn't change this in packaged scripts installed in the system path. This has security implications. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install any package that provides a #!/usr/bin/lua script, such as (but not limited) to luarocks 2. In the terminal: echo 'os.execute("echo rm -rf /")' > lfs.lua; luarocks --version Actual results: $ luarocks --version rm -rf / /usr/bin/lua: /usr/share/lua/5.4/luarocks/fs/lua.lua:299: attempt to index a boolean value (upvalue 'lfs') stack traceback: /usr/share/lua/5.4/luarocks/fs/lua.lua:299: in function 'luarocks.fs.lua.current_dir' (...tail calls...) /usr/share/lua/5.4/luarocks/fs/unix.lua:50: in function 'luarocks.fs.unix.absolute_name' (...tail calls...) /usr/share/lua/5.4/luarocks/fs/linux.lua:8: in function 'luarocks.fs.linux.is_dir' (...tail calls...) /usr/share/lua/5.4/luarocks/fs/lua.lua:193: in function 'luarocks.fs.lua.dir' (...tail calls...) /usr/share/lua/5.4/luarocks/fs/lua.lua:177: in function 'luarocks.fs.lua.list_dir' (...tail calls...) /usr/share/lua/5.4/luarocks/fs/lua.lua:229: in function 'luarocks.fs.lua.modules' (...tail calls...) /usr/share/lua/5.4/luarocks/cmd.lua:511: in function 'luarocks.cmd.run_command' /home/augusto/Projects/digestif/.luarocks/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.4/luarocks/3.9.2-1/bin/luarocks:35: in main chunk [C]: in ? Expected results: $ luarocks --version /usr/bin/luarocks 3.9.1 LuaRocks main command-line interface Additional info: I'm using the following fix on a Lua program I maintain: #!/usr/bin/env lua -- Remove relative directories from package path package.path = package.path:gsub("%f[^\0;]%.[^;]*", ""):gsub(";+", ";"):gsub("^;", ""):gsub(";$", "") package.cpath = package.cpath:gsub("%f[^\0;]%.[^;]*", ""):gsub(";+", ";"):gsub("^;", ""):gsub(";$", "") Fedora can probably do better and use hardcoded pacakge.path and cpath values, since these are known in advance. Scripts with the #!/usr/bin/texlua shebang also might be affected by this issue. Since texlua provides an alternative method to find packages based on kpathsea, something like this should be used as well: os.setenv("TEXMFDOTDIR", "/dev/null") However, this last modification will break programs that expect to find TeX files in the current directory. I don't know of a more fine grained way that would allow that but still exclude random Lua libraries from being found. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177239

2 weeks, 4 days

1
2
0 / 0

[Bug 2142798] Review Request: lua-fluent - Lua implementation of Project Fluent

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...

5 months, 2 weeks

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2142798] Review Request: lua-fluent - Lua implementation of Project Fluent

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...

5 months, 2 weeks

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2142798] Review Request: lua-fluent - Lua implementation of Project Fluent

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...

5 months, 3 weeks

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2142798] Review Request: lua-fluent - Lua implementation of Project Fluent

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...

5 months, 3 weeks

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2142798] Review Request: lua-fluent - Lua implementation of Project Fluent

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...

5 months, 3 weeks

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2142798] Review Request: lua-fluent - Lua implementation of Project Fluent

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...

5 months, 3 weeks

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2142798] Review Request: lua-fluent - Lua implementation of Project Fluent

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 --- Comment #6 from Jonny Heggheim <hegjon(a)gmail.com> --- Thanks for the review! > Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215710 would be appreciated if time allows. Of course, I will do the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...

5 months, 3 weeks

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2142798] Review Request: lua-fluent - Lua implementation of Project Fluent

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions <fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org> --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-fluent -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...

5 months, 3 weeks

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2142798] Review Request: lua-fluent - Lua implementation of Project Fluent

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |benson_muite(a)emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review+ CC| |benson_muite(a)emailplus.org Status|NEW |POST --- Comment #4 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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". 226 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/lua-fluent/2142798-lua- fluent/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages. [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: [-]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lua-fluent-0.2.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm lua-fluent-0.2.0-1.fc39.src.rpm ======================================================= 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpek93wy_p')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ======================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.9 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/alerque/fluent-lua/archive/v0.2.0/fluent-lua-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2458b80c8dad59c86de459bb7b4deef285d196b54ab449e73a8b8814f9822633 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2458b80c8dad59c86de459bb7b4deef285d196b54ab449e73a8b8814f9822633 Requires -------- lua-fluent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lua(abi) lua-cldr lua-epnf lua-penlight Provides -------- lua-fluent: lua-fluent Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142798 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, fonts, Python, Ruby, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, R, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) In the files section rather than %{lua_pkgdir}/fluent/ it would be preferable to have %dir %{lua_pkgdir}/fluent %{lua_pkgdir}/fluent/*.lua as type of content is clearer. Not essential, just a preference. b) Smoke test seems ok Package approved. Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215710 would be appreciated if time allows. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...

5 months, 3 weeks

1
0
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

Lua Packagers SIG June 2023