Hi Salvatore,
Salvatore Bonaccorso, on 2025-02-09:
Regarding CVE-2024-28130, should we ignore it for fixing in bookworm
if it is too risky for regressions?
With the first batch of CVEs addressed in proposed-updates, I
could take a fresher look at the patch set. I thought I would
hit a brick wall, but instead I seem to have an implementation:
* which includes the necessary upstream changes;
* which does not cause regressions in autpkgtest of reverse
dependencies;
* which does not cause build failure of reverse build
dependencies;
* which does not regress like what could be observed in the
bug #1095072.
I can't really recall why I didn't manage to get anywhere
earlier; perhaps I messed the order of the patches. My changes
are available on Salsa[1] for those who are curious. There are
a lot of changes introduced by the patches, so it could be still
deemed risky, but I now think I might be able to justify them to
the Stable Release Managers.
[1]: https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/dcmtk/-/tree/debian/bookworm?ref_type=heads
Have a good evening, :)
Thanks a lot for your work, and for providing this status update. Then
I suggest that we do not not ignore the remaining CVEs and you can
address this equally trough the point release.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 546 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 161:32:44 |
Calls: | 10,385 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 14,057 |
Messages: | 6,416,500 |