Upgrade jackson-databind to 2.13.4.2 to address CVEs#13244
Upgrade jackson-databind to 2.13.4.2 to address CVEs#13244kfaraz wants to merge 3 commits intoapache:masterfrom
Conversation
|
Thanks for the tip, @FrankChen021 ! |
|
Hey @kfaraz I am also interested in getting past these CVE's. Thanks for your work on this! |
|
Hi, @CookieAroundTheBend ! Please let me know if you have any ideas. |
|
@kfaraz We had Druid 0.20.2 working with newer Jackson where we did have to change that GuiceAnnotationIntrospector to use getRawType(). Unfortunately we are trying to apply the same patch to 0.22.1 and are seeing issues most likely stemming from that change. Does this patch work for the latest Druid? Or are you seeing issues with what's in this branch as well? |
| return Key.get(m.getType(), guiceAnnotation); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| return Key.get(m.getType(), guiceAnnotation); | |
| } | |
| return Key.get(getParamType(m), guiceAnnotation); | |
| } | |
| private Type getParamType(AnnotatedMember m) { | |
| if(m.getType().isContainerType()){ | |
| return Types.newParameterizedType(m.getType().getRawClass(), m.getType().getContentType().getRawClass()); | |
| } | |
| return m.getRawType(); | |
| } |
This seems to work for me (and of course changing the Key.get(m.getType()); to Key.get(getParamType(m)); on line 61.
But this was on version 0.22.1 and I'm not sure if this is as robust handling that could be needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is needed for the changes for the StorageSelection
https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/10363/files#diff-6bf786a6df7322201eee2b85d1a1857fc89af11af98c47be9c97449627d0673f
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the suggestion, @CookieAroundTheBend ! I will try to spend some time on this and get it resolved soon.
|
@kfaraz do you have any plans to push this over the finish line? |
|
Not at the moment, @xvrl . I have been occupied with a few other tasks. I am okay if you would like to take it up. |
|
There is a new PR #14770 which should address this. |
|
@kfaraz should we close this PR? |
|
Yes, @xvrl , we can close this for now. |
CVEs:
CVE-2022-42004
CVE-2022-42003
Changes: