Bug 2244677 - Review Request: mactelnet - MikroTik MAC-Telnet protocol tools
Summary: Review Request: mactelnet - MikroTik MAC-Telnet protocol tools
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/haakonnessjoen/MAC...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-10-17 17:12 UTC by Yanko Kaneti
Modified: 2024-04-29 07:36 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6540096 to 6542083 (864 bytes, patch)
2023-10-18 08:13 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Yanko Kaneti 2023-10-17 17:12:46 UTC
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/mactelnet/mactelnet.spec
SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/mactelnet/mactelnet-1.0.0-1.20231017gitc3dc451.fc40.src.rpm
Description: MikroTik MAC-Telnet protocol tools
Fedora Account System Username: yaneti

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2023-10-17 17:20:58 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6540096
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2244677-mactelnet/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06540096-mactelnet/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Tim Semeijn 2023-10-17 23:08:13 UTC
This is an unofficial review as I am not in the packager group yet.

> mactelnet.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/mactelnet

rpmlint error about not using setgroups or initgroups before calling setuid and setgid. This could be a security risk. Best would be to contact upstream to get this fixed.

Furthermore the Version and Release in your spec need some changes. You seem to be using a custom Version number not aligned with the latest release from upstream [1]. I would recommend using the upstream version.

Using the git snapshot in the Release field is deprecated [2] and best would be to apply this in the Version field [3].

[1] https://github.com/haakonnessjoen/MAC-Telnet/tags
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#traditional-versioning
[3] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots

Comment 3 Yanko Kaneti 2023-10-18 07:50:35 UTC
Thanks for looking into it.

(In reply to Tim Semeijn from comment #2)
> This is an unofficial review as I am not in the packager group yet.
> 
> > mactelnet.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/mactelnet
> 
> rpmlint error about not using setgroups or initgroups before calling setuid
> and setgid. This could be a security risk. Best would be to contact upstream
> to get this fixed.

The code in question is for dropping privileges, does setgid before setuid and looks secure enough
https://github.com/haakonnessjoen/MAC-Telnet/blob/master/src/mactelnet.c#L133C2-L133C2


> Furthermore the Version and Release in your spec need some changes. You seem
> to be using a custom Version number not aligned with the latest release from
> upstream [1]. I would recommend using the upstream version.

Its not custom. There is no release or tag in 7 years but:
https://github.com/haakonnessjoen/MAC-Telnet/blob/master/configure.ac#L5

Comment 4 Yanko Kaneti 2023-10-18 08:07:02 UTC
- Go back to release starting with 0. to indicate the "unreleased" status

Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/mactelnet/mactelnet.spec
SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/mactelnet/mactelnet-1.0.0-0.20231017gitc3dc451.fc40.src.rpm

Comment 5 Fedora Review Service 2023-10-18 08:13:27 UTC
Created attachment 1994400 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6540096 to 6542083

Comment 6 Fedora Review Service 2023-10-18 08:13:30 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6542083
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2244677-mactelnet/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06542083-mactelnet/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 7 Tim Semeijn 2023-10-24 21:37:13 UTC
This is an unofficial review as I am not accepted into the packager group yet.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== Comments =====
> The code in question is for dropping privileges, does setgid before setuid and looks secure enough
> https://github.com/haakonnessjoen/MAC-Telnet/blob/master/src/mactelnet.c#L133C2-L133C2

- Privileges seem to be dropped accordingly.

> Its not custom. There is no release or tag in 7 years but:
> https://github.com/haakonnessjoen/MAC-Telnet/blob/master/configure.ac#L5

- Argumentation for current versioning seems legit.

- Someone in the packager group who can do official reviews should have a final look at this review request.


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
     2", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
     later", "BSD 1-Clause License". 34 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /root/2244677-mactelnet/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 6775 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mactelnet-1.0.0-0.20231017gitc3dc451.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          mactelnet-debuginfo-1.0.0-0.20231017gitc3dc451.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          mactelnet-debugsource-1.0.0-0.20231017gitc3dc451.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          mactelnet-1.0.0-0.20231017gitc3dc451.fc40.src.rpm
============================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_7sfc4gx')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

mactelnet.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/mactelnet
=============================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 3.3 s ==============================================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: mactelnet-debuginfo-1.0.0-0.20231017gitc3dc451.fc40.x86_64.rpm
============================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpk47c_odp')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

=============================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ==============================================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 3

mactelnet.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/mactelnet
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.1 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/haakonnessjoen/MAC-Telnet/archive/c3dc4515b1aff09372cdb04aef393437dc2d8f60/mactelnet-1.0.0-c3dc451.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d3982aa772b0139b429048d0bae033149d29a0b0bd344ae96cf88a0b5ac1863e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d3982aa772b0139b429048d0bae033149d29a0b0bd344ae96cf88a0b5ac1863e


Requires
--------
mactelnet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

mactelnet-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

mactelnet-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
mactelnet:
    mactelnet
    mactelnet(x86-64)

mactelnet-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    mactelnet-debuginfo
    mactelnet-debuginfo(x86-64)

mactelnet-debugsource:
    mactelnet-debugsource
    mactelnet-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2244677
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Ruby, Perl, Python, PHP, fonts, Java, R, SugarActivity, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 8 Petr Menšík 2023-10-30 20:05:55 UTC
I agree version 1.0.0 does not seem appropriate.

Latest tag on git source [1] is v0.4.4. If there should be non-zero version, it should be 0.4.4. If it is considered snapshot only, use Version: 0

1. https://github.com/haakonnessjoen/MAC-Telnet/tags

Comment 9 Yanko Kaneti 2023-10-31 15:47:51 UTC
As mentioned earlier 
https://github.com/haakonnessjoen/MAC-Telnet/blob/master/configure.ac#L5

Thanks but no, not considering changing the version at this point.

Comment 10 Petr Menšík 2023-11-02 13:12:15 UTC
Were there ever an upstream archive consisting of version 1.0.0? Proposed as a released version?

Comment 11 Yanko Kaneti 2024-04-29 07:36:35 UTC
Upstream decided to do releases. Its 0.5.1 now. Also converted to %autorelease and %autochangelog

http://declera.com/~yaneti/mactelnet/mactelnet-0.5.1-1.fc41.src.rpm
http://declera.com/~yaneti/mactelnet/mactelnet.spec


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.