Address CVE-2022-1996

[datamattsson]

Signed-off-by: Michael Mattsson [email protected]

What type of PR is this?

Uncomment only one /kind <> line, hit enter to put that in a new line, and remove leading whitespaces from that line:

/kind api-change
/kind bug
/kind cleanup
/kind design
/kind documentation
/kind failing-test
/kind feature
/kind flake

What this PR does / why we need it:

Addresses CVE-2022-1996

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #369

Special notes for your reviewer:

Slack thread: https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/C09QZFCE5/p1670445226176689

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Updated dependencies to address CVE-2022-1996.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @datamattsson!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-csi/external-attacher 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-csi/external-attacher has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @datamattsson. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-csi member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[bswartz]

Is it possible to not bump the go version from 1.16 to 1.18? For a stable release we don't want to change unnecessary things like compiler versions, due to the chance that the new compiler breaks something that used to work (due to deprecation).

[msau42]

/ok-to-test

[datamattsson]

Is it possible to not bump the go version from 1.16 to 1.18?

1.16 has a cascade of CVEs associated with it in some of the indirect dependencies. Is 1.17 a middle road?

[bswartz]

Is it possible to not bump the go version from 1.16 to 1.18?

1.16 has a cascade of CVEs associated with it in some of the indirect dependencies. Is 1.17 a middle road?

Even the latest dot release - 1.16.15? If there are known unpatched security vulnerabilities then I agree it wouldn't make much sense to continue using the old compiler version in a patch that specifically addresses security vulnerabilities, but we should want to avoid upgrading anything that might deprecate existing support because nobody wants to do a dot release upgrade (of this sidecar) and find that something broke.

I'm not specifically aware of anything that was dropped between go version 1.16 and 1.17/1.18, but that's the thing to worry about.

[datamattsson]

Even the latest dot release - 1.16.15?

Changing go.mod from 1.17 to 1.16 and running go mod tidy && go mod vendor in between will reveal this report: https://gist.github.com/datamattsson/e1038144465ace0177dd8b904e9de278

Yesterday, 1.17 was clean as a whistle but today CVE-2022-41717 in golang.org/x/net was discovered (not relevant to the attacher AFAICT).

[datamattsson]

nobody wants to do a dot release upgrade (of this sidecar) and find that something broke.

This is why we test. Any sidecar upgrade, major, minor or patch would require full e2e on our end and expect the same results. I don't think users blindly flick an image upgrade before safely testing the new image.

[bswartz]

This is why we test. Any sidecar upgrade, major, minor or patch would require full e2e on our end and expect the same results. I don't think users blindly flick an image upgrade before safely testing the new image.

Given the CVEs associated with older go compiler versions, I'm not going to oppose an update here, but did want to push back on the idea that testing is sufficient in every case. Testing covers a lot of use cases but typically only in a single (or small number of) configurations. More exotic configurations tend not to be tested, and deprecations tend to affect exotic configurations more than anything. It's a good rule in general to avoid updating things in stable branches without an explicit reason. In this case our explicit reason is security issues with the compiler, so I'm fine with that.

[datamattsson]

Will this PR be merge-able at one point? (I understand 1.26 deliverables takes precedence).

[jsafrane]

/retest

[jsafrane]

/test all

[jsafrane]

I'm fixing CI in #401

[jsafrane]

/test all

[jsafrane]

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: datamattsson, jsafrane

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [jsafrane]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[jsafrane]

Is it possible to not bump the go version from 1.16 to 1.18?

version in go.mod just specifies version of go vendoring rules that will be used by go mod. The actual compiler used to build the image is defined either in cloudbuild.yaml or in prow.sh, both taken from the latest release-tools merge. It's not bound to the branch in any way. I can't tell if it is good or bad, just reporting the process.