[Bug 840602] New: Review Request: maradns - Authoritative and recursive DNS server made with security in mind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
Bug ID: 840602 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: maradns - Authoritative and recursive DNS server made with security in mind Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: zdzichu@irc.pl Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://ttorcz.fedorapeople.org/maradns.spec SRPM URL: http://ttorcz.fedorapeople.org/maradns-2.0.06-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: MaraDNS is a package that implements the Domain Name Service (DNS), an essential internet service. MaraDNS has the following advantages: * Secure. * Supported. * Easy to use. * Small. * Open Source.
Fedora Account System Username: ttorcz
I'd like to revive package which got removed in February. I've based this spec on previously packaged maradns-1.3, which is beyond end of life. Thus, upgrade to 2.0.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fantom@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |casper.le.fantom@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |casper.le.fantom@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
--- Comment #1 from Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fantom@gmail.com --- Hello, sorry for the latence. Some remarks:
* Don't add systemd unit files using a patch, add them using Source1, Source2 and Source3 tags. However, your patch is good to modify build/install.sh file properly.
* Group tag is useless, you can remove it. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
* Use "make" instead of %{__make}, "install" instead of %{__install}, "rm" instead of %{__rm}, and "sed" instead of %{__sed}. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
* You can remove the script in %install section: %{__rm} CHANGELOG CREDITS FAQ ln -fs en/changelog.txt CHANGELOG ln -fs en/credits.txt CREDITS ln -fs en/faq.txt FAQ Because these files are already symbolic links: $ file CHANGELOG CREDITS FAQ CHANGELOG: symbolic link to `doc/en/changelog.txt' CREDITS: symbolic link to `doc/en/credits.txt' FAQ: symbolic link to `doc/en/faq.txt'
* There is some duplicate files in the rpm with the actual %doc line, it would better like this: %doc COPYING doc/en/changelog.txt doc/en/credits.txt doc/en/faq.txt doc/en/{examples,tutorial,webpage}
* You can remove "%doc maradns.gpg.key" line, the source tarball is not signed.
* In %post section, you can replace 's//etc/deadwood//var/cache/deadwood/' by 's@/etc/deadwood@/var/cache/deadwood@'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
--- Comment #2 from Tomasz Torcz zdzichu@irc.pl --- Thanks you for remarks. I've incorporated suggestions into .spec. I'd like to continue using Patch0, as this patch was submitted upstream - I've added a note to .spec.
Spec URL: http://ttorcz.fedorapeople.org/maradns.spec SRPM URL: http://ttorcz.fedorapeople.org/maradns-2.0.06-2.fc17.src.rpm Scratch : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4409540
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
--- Comment #3 from Tomasz Torcz zdzichu@irc.pl --- Ping? Can we continue?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
--- Comment #4 from Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fantom@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/840602-maradns/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist Note: Couldn't connect to PackageDB, check manually [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0 (0001-add-systemd-unit-files-Fedora-15-and-later- RHEL7.patch) Source0 (maradns-2.0.06.tar.xz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Add -p option on "install" commands lines in %%install section [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: maradns-2.0.06-2.fc17.src.rpm maradns-debuginfo-2.0.06-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm maradns-2.0.06-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm maradns.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.maradns.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> maradns.src:41: W: configure-without-libdir-spec maradns.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib maradns.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/maradns/logger maradns maradns.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/maradns/logger maradns maradns.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/maradns maradns maradns.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/maradns maradns maradns.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/deadwood maradns maradns.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/cache/deadwood maradns 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Add "--libdir=%{_libdir}" option in configure line just to fix configure-without-libdir-spec warning Nothing to do for other warnings
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint maradns-debuginfo maradns maradns.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib maradns.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/maradns/logger maradns maradns.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/maradns/logger maradns maradns.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/maradns maradns maradns.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/maradns maradns maradns.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/deadwood maradns maradns.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/cache/deadwood maradns 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Nothing to do
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/test/840602-maradns/srpm/maradns.spec 2012-10-16 13:17:19.756112818 +0200 +++ /home/test/840602-maradns/srpm-unpacked/maradns.spec 2012-10-16 13:17:22.398114008 +0200 @@ -173,5 +173,5 @@
%changelog -* Tue Aug 21 2012 Tomasz Torcz ttorcz@fedoraproject.org - 2.0.06-2 +* Tue Aug 21 2012 Tomasz Torcz <ttorcz@fedoraproject.org - 2.0.06-2 - provide link to patch sent upstream - review remarks: @@ -182,4 +182,4 @@ - be more specific in doc line
-* Mon Jul 16 2012 Tomasz Torcz ttorcz@fedoraproject.org - 2.0.06-1 +* Mon Jul 16 2012 Tomasz Torcz <ttorcz@fedoraproject.org - 2.0.06-1 - initial package for 2.0 branch
Requires -------- maradns-debuginfo-2.0.06-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
maradns-2.0.06-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh config(maradns) = 2.0.06-2.fc17 libc.so.6()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shadow-utils systemd-units
Provides -------- maradns-debuginfo-2.0.06-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
maradns-debuginfo = 2.0.06-2.fc17 maradns-debuginfo(x86-64) = 2.0.06-2.fc17
maradns-2.0.06-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
config(maradns) = 2.0.06-2.fc17 maradns = 2.0.06-2.fc17 maradns(x86-64) = 2.0.06-2.fc17
MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.maradns.org/download/2.0/2.0.06/maradns-2.0.06.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8454493255b5ac794312f24a2944edc0187e2ce4067131aed6b7de058160e17b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8454493255b5ac794312f24a2944edc0187e2ce4067131aed6b7de058160e17b
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 840602 -v
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
--- Comment #5 from Tomasz Torcz zdzichu@irc.pl --- Created attachment 631638 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=631638&action=edit .spec changes
Thank you. Please see -3 with issues fixed.
Spec URL: http://ttorcz.fedorapeople.org/maradns.spec SRPM URL: http://ttorcz.fedorapeople.org/maradns-2.0.06-3.fc18.src.rpm Scratch : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4616000
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
--- Comment #6 from Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fantom@gmail.com --- Hello, the package looks good for me. However, maradns is known for its security issue:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=maradns http://www.maradns.org/security.html
All CVE seems to be fixed in current version, except CVE-2010-2445, please contact upstream about this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
--- Comment #7 from Tomasz Torcz zdzichu@irc.pl --- Are you sure about CVE-2010-2445? It seem to be for freeciv in conjuction with Lua interpreter. Maradns do not have Lua interpreted embedded. Mailing list links points to maradns patch which fixes CVE-2010-2444.
Getting current version of maradns in Fedora would close all those open security bugs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fantom@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fantom@gmail.com --- Sorry I was confused by this line: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612296
Reference: MLIST:[oss-security] 20100610 CVE requests: maradns, freeciv, rbot, gitolite, gource, shib, kvirc
But yes everything is OK :)
---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
Tomasz Torcz zdzichu@irc.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|casper.le.fantom@gmail.com |zdzichu@irc.pl Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Tomasz Torcz zdzichu@irc.pl --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: maradns New Branches: f18 devel Owners: ttorcz
Please unretire maradns package. I'm taking the ownership, upgrading to current release (which fixes security bugs reported for previous version) and commiting to maintin the package in Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- maradns-2.0.06-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/maradns-2.0.06-3.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- maradns-2.0.06-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-12-02 22:24:03
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- maradns-2.0.06-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla