-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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
Upgrade Jinja2 dependency version specification to address CVE-2024-22195 #9638
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #9638 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.00% 88.00%
=======================================
Files 176 176
Lines 22311 22311
=======================================
Hits 19634 19634
Misses 2677 2677
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
138d4ae
to
3348c5a
Compare
…2195 CVE-2024-22195 identified an issue in Jinja2 versions <= 3.1.2. As such we've gone and changed are dependency requirement specification to be 3.1.3 or greater (but less than 4). Note: Preivously we were using the `~=` version specifier. However due to some issues with the `~=` we've moved to using `>=` in combination with `<`. This gives us the same range that `~=` gave us, but avoids a pip resolution issue when multipe packages in an environment use `~=` for the same dependency.
3348c5a
to
07635ec
Compare
…2195 (#9638) CVE-2024-22195 identified an issue in Jinja2 versions <= 3.1.2. As such we've gone and changed our dependency requirement specification to be 3.1.3 or greater (but less than 4). Note: Preivously we were using the `~=` version specifier. However due to some issues with the `~=` we've moved to using `>=` in combination with `<`. This gives us the same range that `~=` gave us, but avoids a pip resolution issue when multiple packages in an environment use `~=` for the same dependency. (cherry picked from commit 7ea4670)
The backport to
To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal: # Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add .worktrees/backport-1.6.latest 1.6.latest
# Navigate to the new working tree
cd .worktrees/backport-1.6.latest
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport-9638-to-1.6.latest
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 7ea46708327260c85460d8034ef6ab84fe3d1b78
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport-9638-to-1.6.latest
# Go back to the original working tree
cd ../..
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove .worktrees/backport-1.6.latest Then, create a pull request where the |
The backport to
To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal: # Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add .worktrees/backport-1.5.latest 1.5.latest
# Navigate to the new working tree
cd .worktrees/backport-1.5.latest
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport-9638-to-1.5.latest
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 7ea46708327260c85460d8034ef6ab84fe3d1b78
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport-9638-to-1.5.latest
# Go back to the original working tree
cd ../..
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove .worktrees/backport-1.5.latest Then, create a pull request where the |
…2195 (#9638) CVE-2024-22195 identified an issue in Jinja2 versions <= 3.1.2. As such we've gone and changed our dependency requirement specification to be 3.1.3 or greater (but less than 4). Note: Preivously we were using the `~=` version specifier. However due to some issues with the `~=` we've moved to using `>=` in combination with `<`. This gives us the same range that `~=` gave us, but avoids a pip resolution issue when multiple packages in an environment use `~=` for the same dependency.
…2195 (#9638) CVE-2024-22195 identified an issue in Jinja2 versions <= 3.1.2. As such we've gone and changed our dependency requirement specification to be 3.1.3 or greater (but less than 4). Note: Preivously we were using the `~=` version specifier. However due to some issues with the `~=` we've moved to using `>=` in combination with `<`. This gives us the same range that `~=` gave us, but avoids a pip resolution issue when multiple packages in an environment use `~=` for the same dependency.
…2195 (#9638) (#9668) CVE-2024-22195 identified an issue in Jinja2 versions <= 3.1.2. As such we've gone and changed our dependency requirement specification to be 3.1.3 or greater (but less than 4). Note: Preivously we were using the `~=` version specifier. However due to some issues with the `~=` we've moved to using `>=` in combination with `<`. This gives us the same range that `~=` gave us, but avoids a pip resolution issue when multiple packages in an environment use `~=` for the same dependency.
…2195 (#9638) (#9655) CVE-2024-22195 identified an issue in Jinja2 versions <= 3.1.2. As such we've gone and changed our dependency requirement specification to be 3.1.3 or greater (but less than 4). Note: Preivously we were using the `~=` version specifier. However due to some issues with the `~=` we've moved to using `>=` in combination with `<`. This gives us the same range that `~=` gave us, but avoids a pip resolution issue when multiple packages in an environment use `~=` for the same dependency. (cherry picked from commit 7ea4670) Co-authored-by: Quigley Malcolm <[email protected]>
… to address CVE-2024-22195 (#9670) * Upgrade Jinja2 dependency version specification to address CVE-2024-22195 (#9638) CVE-2024-22195 identified an issue in Jinja2 versions <= 3.1.2. As such we've gone and changed our dependency requirement specification to be 3.1.3 or greater (but less than 4). Note: Preivously we were using the `~=` version specifier. However due to some issues with the `~=` we've moved to using `>=` in combination with `<`. This gives us the same range that `~=` gave us, but avoids a pip resolution issue when multiple packages in an environment use `~=` for the same dependency.
resolves CVE-2024-22195
Problem
CVE-2024-22195 identified an issue in Jinja2 versions <= 3.1.2.
Solution
We've gone changed our dependency requirement specification to be 3.1.3 or greater (but less than 4).
Note: Preivously we were using the
~=
version specifier. However due to some issues with the~=
we've moved to using>=
in combination with<
. This gives us the same range that~=
gave us, but avoids a pip resolution issue when multiple packages in an environment use~=
for the same dependency.Checklist