On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:48:49PM +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> The said patch in question fixes a CVE[x] in stable/liberty.
> We currently have two options, both of them have caused an impasse with
> the Nova upstream / stable maintainers.  We've had two-ish months to
> mull over this.  I'd prefer to get this out of a limbo, & bring this to
> a logical conclusion.
> The two options at hand:
> (1) Nova backport from master (that also adds a check for the presence
>     of 'ProcessLimits' attribute which is only present in
>     oslo.concurrency>=2.6.1; and a conditional check for 'prlimit'
>     parameter in qemu_img_info() method.)
>     https://review.openstack.org/#/c/327624/ -- "virt: set address space
>     & CPU time limits when running qemu-img"
> (2) Or bump global-requirements for 'oslo.concurrency'
>     https://review.openstack.org/#/c/337277/5 -- Bump
>     'global-requirements' for 'oslo.concurrency' to 2.6.1

Actually we have 3 options

  (3) Do nothing, leave the bug unfixed in stable/liberty

While this is a security bug, it is one that has existed in every single
openstack release ever, and it is not a particularly severe bug. Even if
we fixed in liberty, it would still remain unfixed in every release before
liberty. We're in the verge of releasing Newton at which point liberty
becomes less relevant. So I question whether it is worth spending more
effort on dealing with this in liberty upstream.  Downstream vendors
still have the option to do either (1) or (2) in their own private
branches if they so desire, regardless of whether we fix it upstream.

|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to