On 24 February 2016 at 15:27, <mariano.lopez@linux.intel.com> wrote:

+# Whitelist for packages (PN)
+cve_check_pn_whitelist () {
+ glibc-locale
+}

Why is this a shell function? CVE_CHECK_PN_WHITELIST = "glibc-locale" please.

+# Whitelist for CVE and version of package
+python cve_check_cve_whitelist () {
+ {"CVE-2014-2524": ("6.3",), \
+ }
+}

Why is this a Python function? Make it a bare string with implied formatting and it can be extended from outside this class, where as this can't.

+addtask cve_check before do_build

If you're expecting to look at the sources, you'll want to be after do_fetch too.

+do_cve_check[depends] = "cve-check-tool-native:do_populate_cve_db"

And cve-check-tool-native:do_populate_sysroot.

+def get_patches_cves(d):
+ """
+ Get patches that solve CVEs using the "CVE: " tag.
+ """
+
+ import re
+
+ pn = d.getVar("PN", True)
+ cve_match = re.compile("CVE:( CVE\-\d+\-\d+)+")

How does this work as the backslashes are escaping the - and d and d? Use r"" strings.

+ patched_cves = set()
+ for url in src_patches(d):
+ patch_file = bb.fetch.decodeurl(url)[2]
+ with open(patch_file, "r") as f:
+ patch_text = f.read()
+
+ # Search for the "CVE: " line
+ match = cve_match.search(patch_text)
+ if match:
+ # Get only the CVEs without the "CVE: " tag
+ cves = patch_text[match.start()+5:match.end()]
+ for cve in cves.split():
+ patched_cves.add(cve)

Breaks for patches such as this in glibc:

meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/CVE-2015-9761_1.patch:CVE: CVE-2015-9761 patch #1

I'd probably look for a line that starts with "CVE:" and the use re.findall to find all strings matching r"CVE-\d{4}-\d+"

+ # It is needed to export the proxies to download the database using HTTP
+ export_proxies(d)

The database has already been downloaded hasn't it?

+ # Write the faux CSV file to be used with cve-check-tool
+ fd, faux = tempfile.mkstemp(prefix="cve-faux-")
+ with os.fdopen(fd, "w") as f:
+ f.write("%s,%s,%s," % (bpn, pv, cves))

Put this inside the try incase the write fails so the file will still be deleted.

+ cmd += " %s" % faux
+ try:
+ popen = subprocess.Popen(cmd, shell=True, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
+ output, error = popen.communicate()

Don't use the low-level function, the higher level helpers are clearer.

Always write cmd as a list unless you *need* the shell.

try:

subprocess.check_output(cmd, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)

except CommandCalledException as e:

bb.warn("Couldn't check for CVEs: %s (output %s)" % (e, e.output))

+def get_cve_info(d, cves):
+ """
+ Get CVE information from the database used by cve-check-tool.
+ """
+
+ try:
+ import sqlite3
+ except ImportError:
+ from pysqlite2 import dbapi2 as sqlite3

Isn't the output from cve-check-tool good enough? Would it be nicer to extend the log instead of assuming that the database format won't ever change?

+def cve_write_data(d, patched, unpatched, cve_data):
+ """
+ Write CVE information in WORKDIR; and to CVE_CHECK_DIR, and
+ CVE manifest if enabled.
+ """
+
+ from bb.utils import mkdirhier
+
+ cve_file = d.getVar("CVE_CHECK_LOCAL_FILE", True)
+ nvd_link = "https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId="
+ write_string = ""
+ mkdirhier(d.getVar("CVE_CHECK_LOCAL_DIR", True))
+
+ for cve in sorted(cve_data):
+ write_string += "PACKAGE NAME: %s\n" % d.getVar("PN", True)
+ write_string += "PACKAGE VERSION: %s\n" % d.getVar("PV", True)
+ write_string += "CVE: %s\n" % cve
+ if cve in patched:
+ write_string += "CVE STATUS: Patched\n"
+ else:
+ write_string += "CVE STATUS: Unpatched\n"
+ bb.warn("Found unpatched CVE, for more information check %s" % cve_file)
+ write_string += "CVE SUMMARY: %s\n" % cve_data[cve]["summary"]
+ write_string += "CVSS v2 BASE SCORE: %s\n" % cve_data[cve]["score"]
+ write_string += "VECTOR: %s\n" % cve_data[cve]["vector"]
+ write_string += "MORE INFORMATION: %s%s\n\n" % (nvd_link, cve)
+
+ with open(cve_file, "w") as f:
+ f.write(write_string)

Just write to the file instead of to a temporary string.

Ross