Closed
Bug 839141
Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
Upgrade Mozilla to NSS 3.14.3 (once it's ready)
Categories
(Core :: Security: PSM, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: KaiE, Assigned: mayhemer)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
(Whiteboard: [no-nag])
Attachments
(5 files, 1 obsolete file)
34 bytes,
text/plain
|
wtc
:
review+
lsblakk
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
lsblakk
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
akeybl
:
approval-mozilla-esr17+
|
Details |
17.96 KB,
patch
|
briansmith
:
review+
lsblakk
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
lsblakk
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
mayhemer
:
checkin+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
16.08 KB,
patch
|
mayhemer
:
checkin+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
124.52 KB,
patch
|
mayhemer
:
checkin+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
941 bytes,
patch
|
briansmith
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Mozilla should pick up the bugfix from NSS bug 822365, which requires to upgrade to NSS 3.14.3, and I suggest to use this bug to track upgrading the various Mozilla branches.
NSS 3.14.3 hasn't been released yet, but we have started testing it.
We just created the first beta tag, NSS_3_14_3_BETA1
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•12 years ago
|
||
Whiteboard: [keep open]
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [keep open] → [leave open]
Comment 2•12 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•12 years ago
|
||
We must update mozilla-central and mozilla-aurora to the final RTM version.
The only changes that affect Mozilla's build are the version numbers.
status-firefox21:
--- → affected
tracking-firefox21:
--- → ?
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
Attachment #718510 -
Flags: review?(bsmith)
Comment 5•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 718510 [details]
placeholder for approval
r=wtc.
Attachment #718510 -
Flags: review?(bsmith) → review+
Updated•12 years ago
|
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [leave open] → [leave open][no-nag]
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•12 years ago
|
||
In order to pick up the lucky-13 fix for Firefox, we need to get this upgrade done.
Therefore I propose to migrate the flags from bug 822365 to this one, at least 20 and esr17.
I'm not involved in b2g, so I'm not touching those flags.
status-firefox20:
--- → affected
status-firefox-esr17:
--- → affected
tracking-firefox20:
--- → ?
tracking-firefox-esr17:
--- → ?
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #718510 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr17?
Comment 7•12 years ago
|
||
We're still discussing what to do about ESR17/B2G18 in email, but this can definitely land to FF20/21.
Updated•12 years ago
|
Blocks: CVE-2013-1620
Updated•12 years ago
|
Blocks: CVE-2013-0791
Comment 8•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 718510 [details]
placeholder for approval
[Triage Comment]
Please go ahead with landing this upgrade to Aurora/Beta branches today.
Attachment #718510 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta+
Attachment #718510 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora+
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 9•12 years ago
|
||
Command series, ran from mozilla-central root src dir:
$ python client.py update_nss NSS_3_14_3_RTM
$ patch < security/patches/bug-834091.patch
patching file security/nss/lib/pkcs7/p7decode.c
patching file security/nss/lib/pkcs7/secpkcs7.h
patching file security/nss/lib/smime/smime.def
$ hg addrem
removing dbm/include/moz.build
removing dbm/moz.build
removing dbm/src/moz.build
removing dbm/tests/moz.build
removing security/nss/tests/pkcs11/netscape/trivial/moz.build
$ hg stat
M security/nss/TAG-INFO
M security/nss/TAG-INFO-CKBI
M security/nss/cmd/certutil/certutil.c
M security/nss/lib/freebl/blapi.h
M security/nss/lib/freebl/hmacct.h
M security/nss/lib/nss/nss.h
M security/nss/lib/softoken/softkver.h
M security/nss/lib/util/nssutil.h
M security/nss/lib/util/pkcs11n.h
R dbm/include/moz.build
R dbm/moz.build
R dbm/src/moz.build
R dbm/tests/moz.build
R security/nss/tests/pkcs11/netscape/trivial/moz.build
$ hg qnew 834091-update-nss-to-NSS_3_14_3_RTM.patch
Attachment #724078 -
Flags: review?(bsmith)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 10•12 years ago
|
||
$ python client.py update_nss NSS_3_14_3_RTM
$ patch -p0 < security/patches/bug-834091.patch
patching file security/nss/lib/pkcs7/p7decode.c
patching file security/nss/lib/pkcs7/secpkcs7.h
patching file security/nss/lib/smime/smime.def
$ hg stat
M security/nss/TAG-INFO
M security/nss/TAG-INFO-CKBI
M security/nss/cmd/certutil/certutil.c
M security/nss/lib/freebl/blapi.h
M security/nss/lib/freebl/hmacct.h
M security/nss/lib/nss/nss.h
M security/nss/lib/softoken/softkver.h
M security/nss/lib/util/nssutil.h
M security/nss/lib/util/pkcs11n.h
$ hg qnew 834091-update-nss-to-NSS_3_14_3_RTM-m-a.patch
Attachment #724083 -
Flags: review?(bsmith)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 11•12 years ago
|
||
$ python client.py update_nss NSS_3_14_3_RTM
$ hg addrem
$ hg stat
M security/nss/TAG-INFO
M security/nss/TAG-INFO-CKBI
M security/nss/cmd/certutil/certutil.c
M security/nss/lib/freebl/blapi.h
M security/nss/lib/freebl/ecl/ecp_aff.c
M security/nss/lib/freebl/ldvector.c
M security/nss/lib/freebl/loader.c
M security/nss/lib/freebl/loader.h
M security/nss/lib/freebl/manifest.mn
M security/nss/lib/freebl/md5.c
M security/nss/lib/freebl/rawhash.c
M security/nss/lib/freebl/sha512.c
M security/nss/lib/freebl/sha_fast.c
M security/nss/lib/freebl/sha_fast.h
M security/nss/lib/nss/nss.def
M security/nss/lib/nss/nss.h
M security/nss/lib/pk11wrap/pk11obj.c
M security/nss/lib/pk11wrap/pk11pub.h
M security/nss/lib/softoken/manifest.mn
M security/nss/lib/softoken/pkcs11.c
M security/nss/lib/softoken/pkcs11c.c
M security/nss/lib/softoken/pkcs11i.h
M security/nss/lib/softoken/rsawrapr.c
M security/nss/lib/softoken/sdb.c
M security/nss/lib/softoken/softkver.h
M security/nss/lib/softoken/softoken.h
M security/nss/lib/softoken/softoknt.h
M security/nss/lib/ssl/ssl3con.c
M security/nss/lib/util/hasht.h
M security/nss/lib/util/nssutil.h
M security/nss/lib/util/pkcs11n.h
M security/nss/tests/ssl/ssl.sh
A security/nss/lib/freebl/hmacct.c
A security/nss/lib/freebl/hmacct.h
A security/nss/lib/softoken/sftkhmac.c
$ hg qnew 834091-update-nss-to-NSS_3_14_3_RTM-m-b.patch
Attachment #724085 -
Flags: review?(bsmith)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 12•12 years ago
|
||
Attachment #724091 -
Flags: review?(bsmith)
Comment 13•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 724078 [details] [diff] [review]
v1
Review of attachment 724078 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
::: dbm/include/moz.build
@@ -1,4 @@
> -# vim: set filetype=python:
> -# This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
> -# License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
> -# file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
Honza: What are these moz.build files in your patch?
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #724091 -
Flags: review?(bsmith) → review+
![]() |
||
Comment 14•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Wan-Teh Chang from comment #13)
> Comment on attachment 724078 [details] [diff] [review]
> v1
>
> Review of attachment 724078 [details] [diff] [review]:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ::: dbm/include/moz.build
> @@ -1,4 @@
> > -# vim: set filetype=python:
> > -# This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
> > -# License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
> > -# file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
>
> Honza: What are these moz.build files in your patch?
They landed as part of updating the build system in bug 784841. I imagine they shouldn't be removed.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 15•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Wan-Teh Chang from comment #13)
> Honza: What are these moz.build files in your patch?
Good question, those has been removed by the update. Not sure whether they should be left in the tree or not. Probably yes.. those seems to be the recent updates to mozilla build system.
Seems like that is something we will need to manage since now every time we are updating NSS.
Probably worth a new bug and documentation update.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 16•12 years ago
|
||
Attachment #724115 -
Flags: review?(bsmith)
Comment 17•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 724078 [details] [diff] [review]
v1
> python client.py update_nss NSS_3_14_3_RTM
> hg addrem
I agree that this is the right thing to do. I did not review the actual patch, but instead just these steps. The hg addremove should be "hg addremove dbm security/coreconf security/dbm security/nss" but in Honza's trees that's equivalent.
I did notice the moz.build files were mentioned in the patch. I think the moz.build files shouldn't be in these NSS directories at all. I agree it seems good to remove these files.
The NSS 3.14.3 release notes say that NSS 3.14.3 requires NSPR 4.9.5 or later. I checked and all branches have NSPR 4.9.5 or later so NSPR doesn't need to be updated.
Attachment #724078 -
Flags: review?(bsmith) → review+
Comment 18•12 years ago
|
||
Honza, also when you update each tree, make sure that the patch that lands either adds or removes a blank line from security/coreconf/coreconf.dep. This is a workaround to deal with the fact that the build dependencies for header files in NSS are not correct.
Comment 19•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 724083 [details] [diff] [review]
v1 for m-a
Honza, you don't need to post patches for review here. The comments you made with the "python client.py" "hg addremove" and "hg status" are sufficient for the review, and those work across branches.
Attachment #724083 -
Flags: review?(bsmith)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 20•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Brian Smith (:bsmith) from comment #19)
> Comment on attachment 724083 [details] [diff] [review]
> v1 for m-a
>
> Honza, you don't need to post patches for review here. The comments you made
> with the "python client.py" "hg addremove" and "hg status" are sufficient
> for the review, and those work across branches.
OK, next time :)
(In reply to Brian Smith (:bsmith) from comment #18)
> Honza, also when you update each tree, make sure that the patch that lands
> either adds or removes a blank line from security/coreconf/coreconf.dep.
> This is a workaround to deal with the fact that the build dependencies for
> header files in NSS are not correct.
According [1] no need for Gecko 17+, right?
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Updating_NSPR_or_NSS_in_mozilla-central
Comment 21•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 724078 [details] [diff] [review]
v1
[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): This is needed to pick up the fix for bug 822365.
User impact if declined: Exposure to bug 822365.
Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): This has been tested for a few weeks now on mozilla-central and in Google Chrome.
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): The risk is that there will be some regressions. But, the regression risk looks low given the testing on mozilla-central and the fact that very few changes were made between NSS 3.14.2 and NSS 3.14.3:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?resolution=FIXED&classification=Components&query_format=advanced&target_milestone=3.14.3&product=NSS&list_id=5990497
String or UUID changes made by this patch: None
Attachment #724078 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #724078 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Comment 22•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Honza Bambas (:mayhemer) from comment #20)
> According [1] no need for Gecko 17+, right?
>
> [1]
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Updating_NSPR_or_NSS_in_mozilla-
> central
The client.py script *should* do the change for you automatically. However, I think there may be a bug in it, because I remember having to manually fix security/coreconf/coreconf.dep myself after the fact. As long as "hg diff security/coreconf/coreconf.dep" gives you a change to that file (whether done by client.py or done by yourself manually), you are good to go.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 23•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Brian Smith (:bsmith) from comment #22)
> (In reply to Honza Bambas (:mayhemer) from comment #20)
> > According [1] no need for Gecko 17+, right?
> >
> > [1]
> > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Updating_NSPR_or_NSS_in_mozilla-
> > central
>
> The client.py script *should* do the change for you automatically. However,
> I think there may be a bug in it, because I remember having to manually fix
> security/coreconf/coreconf.dep myself after the fact. As long as "hg diff
> security/coreconf/coreconf.dep" gives you a change to that file (whether
> done by client.py or done by yourself manually), you are good to go.
Hmm.. I thought it had been fixed in smarter way.. OK, good point!
Comment 24•12 years ago
|
||
Also, in mozilla-central and mozilla-aurora, there are mozilla-specific patches in security/patches that must be re-applied after you run client.py.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 25•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Brian Smith (:bsmith) from comment #24)
> Also, in mozilla-central and mozilla-aurora, there are mozilla-specific
> patches in security/patches that must be re-applied after you run client.py.
I thought I did that, right?
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 26•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 724078 [details] [diff] [review]
v1
remote: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f46697a173d3
remote: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1b49fb552e18
Attachment #724078 -
Flags: checkin+
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #724115 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #724115 -
Flags: review?(bsmith)
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #724078 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #724078 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta+
Attachment #724078 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Attachment #724078 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora+
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 27•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 724083 [details] [diff] [review]
v1 for m-a
remote: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/6324adcca5c1
remote: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/e3987f396053
Attachment #724083 -
Flags: checkin+
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 28•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 724085 [details] [diff] [review]
v1 for m-b
remote: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/3672772d0c1e
remote: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/8bc9657bc249
Attachment #724085 -
Flags: review?(bsmith) → checkin+
Updated•12 years ago
|
Comment 29•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 718510 [details]
placeholder for approval
After analysis by Brian in bug 848890, the risk here for uplifting NSS/NSPR is manageable and necessary. We're committed to providing ESR users with the latest critical security fixes, and these changes do qualify.
The only remaining step is to uplift to mozilla-b2g18
Attachment #718510 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr17? → approval-mozilla-esr17+
Comment 30•12 years ago
|
||
gps, FYI:
(In reply to Honza Bambas (:mayhemer) from comment #9)
> $ hg addrem
> removing dbm/include/moz.build
> removing dbm/moz.build
> removing dbm/src/moz.build
> removing dbm/tests/moz.build
> removing security/nss/tests/pkcs11/netscape/trivial/moz.build
Comment 31•12 years ago
|
||
We'll want to ask enterprises to test "SSL client authentication with smartcards" according to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=848890#c4
Setting the relnote flag to get this on a list we'll review closer to release.
relnote-firefox:
--- → ?
Reporter | ||
Comment 32•12 years ago
|
||
Closing, because 3.14.3 RTM has landed on mozilla-central already (comment 26).
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [leave open][no-nag] → [no-nag]
Reporter | ||
Comment 33•12 years ago
|
||
Landed NSPR 4.9.5 and NSS 3.14.3 RTM versions into mozilla-esr17 branch.
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr17/rev/902b2c3f4d6b
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr17/rev/747c40b60d2b
Reporter | ||
Comment 34•12 years ago
|
||
Setting aurora 21 and beta 20 flags to fixed, based on comment 27 and 28.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 35•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Kai Engert (:kaie) from comment #33)
> Landed NSPR 4.9.5 and NSS 3.14.3 RTM versions into mozilla-esr17 branch.
> https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr17/rev/902b2c3f4d6b
> https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr17/rev/747c40b60d2b
Thanks Kai for landing this, I didn't get to it.
Updated•12 years ago
|
relnote-firefox:
? → ---
Comment 36•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Kai Engert (:kaie) from comment #33)
> Landed NSPR 4.9.5 and NSS 3.14.3 RTM versions into mozilla-esr17 branch.
> https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr17/rev/902b2c3f4d6b
> https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr17/rev/747c40b60d2b
Would you mind doing the same for mozilla-b2g18? a=akeybl
Flags: needinfo?(kaie)
Reporter | ||
Comment 37•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Alex Keybl [:akeybl] from comment #36)
> (In reply to Kai Engert (:kaie) from comment #33)
> > Landed NSPR 4.9.5 and NSS 3.14.3 RTM versions into mozilla-esr17 branch.
> > https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr17/rev/902b2c3f4d6b
> > https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr17/rev/747c40b60d2b
>
> Would you mind doing the same for mozilla-b2g18? a=akeybl
I'm not working with b2g. I never checked out the tree, I never built it, I don't know how to test it. So, there is risk that I accidentally break things. Furthermore I think b2g18 uses a fork of NSS, and it would require me to reapply the local patches that Mozilla uses on top of regular NSS. I would prefer to not touch that branch.
Flags: needinfo?(kaie)
Comment 38•12 years ago
|
||
Comment 39•12 years ago
|
||
Comment 40•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g18_v1_0_1/rev/d887b7ef3640
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g18_v1_0_1/rev/2b44e2c40cc1
status-b2g18-v1.0.1:
--- → fixed
Updated•1 year ago
|
Blocks: nss-uplift
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•