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

[fix][sec] Upgrade scala-library to get rid of CVE-2022-36944 #18021

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 15, 2022

Conversation

nicoloboschi
Copy link
Contributor

@nicoloboschi nicoloboschi commented Oct 12, 2022

Motivation

scala-library 2.13.3 is vulnerable to CVE-2022-36944.
This lib is used in debezium sources

Modifications

  • Upgrade to 2.13.10

Documentation

  • doc
  • doc-required
  • doc-not-needed
  • doc-complete

@github-actions
Copy link

The pr had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label.

Copy link
Contributor

@eolivelli eolivelli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Dec 15, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #18021 (42c6536) into master (050b310) will increase coverage by 0.30%.
The diff coverage is 33.33%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #18021      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     47.35%   47.65%   +0.30%     
- Complexity     9384     9441      +57     
============================================
  Files           623      623              
  Lines         59104    59106       +2     
  Branches       6146     6147       +1     
============================================
+ Hits          27987    28166     +179     
+ Misses        28100    27910     -190     
- Partials       3017     3030      +13     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 47.65% <33.33%> (+0.30%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...va/org/apache/pulsar/broker/service/ServerCnx.java 49.88% <0.00%> (+1.34%) ⬆️
.../pulsar/broker/service/persistent/SystemTopic.java 92.30% <100.00%> (+0.64%) ⬆️
...he/pulsar/client/impl/PartitionedProducerImpl.java 30.34% <0.00%> (-5.13%) ⬇️
...g/apache/pulsar/broker/lookup/TopicLookupBase.java 50.83% <0.00%> (-2.80%) ⬇️
...sar/broker/service/schema/SchemaRegistryStats.java 71.25% <0.00%> (-1.25%) ⬇️
...rg/apache/pulsar/broker/web/PulsarWebResource.java 57.51% <0.00%> (-1.25%) ⬇️
...va/org/apache/pulsar/client/impl/ProducerImpl.java 15.66% <0.00%> (-1.17%) ⬇️
...apache/pulsar/broker/namespace/OwnershipCache.java 69.47% <0.00%> (-1.06%) ⬇️
...tent/PersistentDispatcherSingleActiveConsumer.java 58.30% <0.00%> (-0.95%) ⬇️
.../pulsar/client/impl/ProducerStatsRecorderImpl.java 84.04% <0.00%> (-0.62%) ⬇️
... and 32 more

@nicoloboschi nicoloboschi merged commit 3011946 into apache:master Dec 15, 2022
nicoloboschi added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 15, 2022
nicoloboschi added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 15, 2022
@tisonkun
Copy link
Member

@nicoloboschi @eolivelli I'm pretty curious where we have a dependency on scala-library explicitly or transitively, lol.

@nicoloboschi
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nicoloboschi @eolivelli I'm pretty curious where we have a dependency on scala-library explicitly or transitively, lol.

Kafka uses scala and kafka is used in the debezium connectors. Actually the whole kafka dependency seems useless, only Kafka connect should be used.
Let's see if integration tests pass even without it nicoloboschi#42

lifepuzzlefun pushed a commit to lifepuzzlefun/pulsar that referenced this pull request Jan 10, 2023
coderzc pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2023
@coderzc coderzc added the cherry-picked/branch-2.9 Archived: 2.9 is end of life label Feb 28, 2023
Annavar-satish pushed a commit to pandio-com/pulsar that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2023
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.

5 participants