Closed Bug 1152939 (SQLite3.8.9) Opened 5 years ago Closed 5 years ago
Upgrade to SQLite 3
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/36.0 SeaMonkey/2.33.1 Build ID: 20150321194901 Steps to reproduce: http://www.sqlite.org/news.html http://www.sqlite.org/releaselog/3_8_9.html "The 22.214.171.124 patch release fixes an obscure problem in the SQLite code generator that can cause incorrect results when the qualifying expression of a partial index is used inside the ON clause of a LEFT JOIN. This problem has been in the code since support for partial indexes was first added in version 3.8.0. However, it is difficult to imagine a valid reason to every put the qualifying constraint inside the ON clause of a LEFT JOIN, and so this issue has never come up before."
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Depends on: SQLite126.96.36.199
Ever confirmed: true
These are the correct relnotes: "SQLite version 3.8.9 is a regularly scheduled maintenance release. New features in this release include the PRAGMA index_xinfo command, the sqlite3_status64() interface, and the ".dbinfo" command of the command-line shell. See the release notes for additional information. "
I'm glad we didn't do WebSQL!
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM UTC-4] from comment #2) > http://lcamtuf.blogspot.com/2015/04/finding-bugs-in-sqlite-easy-way.html > > Yikes. Someone with lots more time (and creativity) to fuzz will likely yield a 188.8.131.52. Wash, rinse, repeat.
One of the good things about using a so much known and used library, is we get a lot of third party testing. This is all wins for us :)
(In reply to Arthur K. from comment #4) > Someone with lots more time (and creativity) to fuzz You would be hard pressed to find more creativity than Zalewski's > will likely yield a 184.108.40.206. Wash, rinse, repeat. That's the software treadmill for you. If you're not prepared to stay on top of a library's upgrades you shouldn't be using that library. Since we don't operate on raw SQL from the web hopefully we're insulated from the security bugs, but better safe than sorry. [Tracking Requested - why for this release]: I assume we wouldn't actually upgrade ESR-31 (EOL this summer) unless we know a specific security bug could be triggered from web content but I wanted to raise the possibility. It would be good to get this on ESR-38 though so we don't have nagging worries for the next year. Not urgent enough at this point to take on Beta 38, so 39 and ESR 38.1 are probably good enough.
Whiteboard: (incldues security fixes)
If we decide to take this for esr38, I'd like to get it on b2g37 for v2.2 as well. I could argue for b2g34 (v2.1) as well.
Whiteboard: (incldues security fixes) → (includes security fixes)
Assignee: nobody → reed
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #8592562 - Flags: review?(mak77)
Not sure if you were planning to run this through Try or not, but please do. We've caught regressions in the past by doing so.
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM UTC-4] from comment #9) > Not sure if you were planning to run this through Try or not, but please do. > We've caught regressions in the past by doing so. I'm waiting for my mercurial access to be re-enabled (bug 1154543) so I can do that...
Tracking as we want to update it. It would be great if it could land today (ie have an uplift request) to be part of 38 beta 5 (gtb tomorrow)
Comment on attachment 8592562 [details] [diff] [review] patch - v1 Approval Request Comment [Feature/regressing bug #]: Pre-existing SQLite bugs (some of which have security impact) [User impact if declined]: Leave users vulnerable to known (public) security-impact bugs [Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: Just landed on inbound, green Try runs, and passes SQLite's test suites. [Risks and why]: Low risk [String/UUID change made/needed]: None.
Comment on attachment 8592562 [details] [diff] [review] patch - v1 Forgive me if I'm doing this wrong... Wasn't sure if you wanted approval requests for both aurora and beta or just one or the other... Please fix as needed. :)
It is the same for us :) Thanks for the reactivity, we will approve it once it is in m-c.
(In reply to Daniel Veditz [:dveditz] from comment #6) > (In reply to Arthur K. from comment #4) > > Someone with lots more time (and creativity) to fuzz > > You would be hard pressed to find more creativity than Zalewski's Indeed. But those guys at Pwn2Own get *really* deep and creative as well.
Can we categorically state that we don't want to take this in ESR31?
Try pushes for b2g37 and b2g34 look good. I'm going to let this bake for a week or so before nominating for uplift, though.
(In reply to Al Billings [:abillings] from comment #21) > Can we categorically state that we don't want to take this in ESR31? Given the choice I'd love to see this in ESR-31 so I'm not going to "categorically" say don't take it, but it doesn't meet our usual bar of a known high/critical security bug or a topcrash type stability issue. ESR-31 is currently using 220.127.116.11
(In reply to Daniel Veditz [:dveditz] from comment #23) > (In reply to Al Billings [:abillings] from comment #21) > > Can we categorically state that we don't want to take this in ESR31? > > Given the choice I'd love to see this in ESR-31 so I'm not going to > "categorically" say don't take it, but it doesn't meet our usual bar of a > known high/critical security bug or a topcrash type stability issue. > > ESR-31 is currently using 18.104.22.168 This to me suggests that we should not take this in ESR31. More to the point, I think we need a pretty good argument to take this change on ESR31.
Comment on attachment 8592562 [details] [diff] [review] patch - v1 This has baked for a couple weeks now across various releases without issue. Let's get this on b2g34/b2g37. See comment 14 for answers to previous uplift request questions.
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM UTC-4] from comment #26) > https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g37_v2_2/rev/fb6996086ceb Correction: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g37_v2_2/rev/1063eb65195a
Whiteboard: (includes security fixes) → [adv-main38-] (includes security fixes)
Someone want to create the new bug? SQLite 3.8.10 has been released: https://www.sqlite.org/releaselog/3_8_10.html Added the sqldiff.exe utility program for computing the differences between two SQLite database files. Added the y format string to the matchinfo() function of FTS3. Performance improvements for ORDER BY, VACUUM, CREATE INDEX, PRAGMA integrity_check, and PRAGMA quick_check. Fix many obscure problems discovered while SQL fuzzing. Identify all methods for important objects in the interface documentation. (example) Made the American Fuzzy Lop fuzzer a standard part of SQLite's testing strategy. Add the ".binary" and ".limits" commands to the command-line shell. Make the "dbstat" virtual table part of standard builds when compiled with the SQLITE_ENABLE_DBSTAT_VTAB option. SQLITE_SOURCE_ID: "2015-05-07 11:53:08 cf975957b9ae671f34bb65f049acf351e650d437" SHA1 for sqlite3.c: 0b34f0de356a3f21b9dfc761f3b7821b6353c570
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.