test miss patch

[abadawi591]

Merge Checklist

All boxes should be checked before merging the PR (just tick any boxes which don't apply to this PR)

• The toolchain has been rebuilt successfully (or no changes were made to it)
• The toolchain/worker package manifests are up-to-date
• Any updated packages successfully build (or no packages were changed)
• Packages depending on static components modified in this PR (Golang, *-static subpackages, etc.) have had their Release tag incremented.
• Package tests (%check section) have been verified with RUN_CHECK=y for existing SPEC files, or added to new SPEC files
• All package sources are available
• cgmanifest files are up-to-date and sorted (./cgmanifest.json, ./toolkit/scripts/toolchain/cgmanifest.json, .github/workflows/cgmanifest.json)
• LICENSE-MAP files are up-to-date (./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/data/licenses.json, ./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/LICENSES-MAP.md, ./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/LICENSE-EXCEPTIONS.PHOTON)
• All source files have up-to-date hashes in the *.signatures.json files
• sudo make go-tidy-all and sudo make go-test-coverage pass
• Documentation has been updated to match any changes to the build system
• Ready to merge

---

Summary

What does the PR accomplish, why was it needed?

Change Log

• Change
• Change
• Change

Does this affect the toolchain?

YES/NO

Associated issues

• #xxxx

Links to CVEs

• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-YYYY-XXXX

Test Methodology

• Pipeline build id: xxxx

[CBL-Mariner-Bot]

❌ ERRORS DETECTED

These issues must be fixed before the PR can be merged.

❌ Errors

• Missing Patch File: Patch file 'CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch' is referenced in the spec but not found in the directory
  • Fix: Add the missing patch file or update the Patch reference
• Missing CVE in Changelog: CVE-2025-30204 is referenced in the spec file but not in the latest changelog entry
  • Fix: Add CVE-2025-30204 to the most recent changelog entry
• Missing CVE in Changelog: CVE-2025-22868 is referenced in the spec file but not in the latest changelog entry
  • Fix: Add CVE-2025-22868 to the most recent changelog entry
• Missing CVE in Changelog: CVE-2022-41717 is referenced in the spec file but not in the latest changelog entry
  • Fix: Add CVE-2022-41717 to the most recent changelog entry

🧠 AI Analysis Summary

Analysis for SPECS/azcopy/azcopy.spec

Below is a detailed security review of the patch and spec file changes:

1. Security Implications
   • The addition of Patch4 with the placeholder “CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch” raises a red flag. A patch entry with an invalid or placeholder CVE ID may indicate either an incomplete patch or a misconfiguration that could leave a vulnerability unaddressed.
   • If this placeholder was mistakenly committed, then a vulnerability fix might not actually be applied, potentially exposing the package to risk. It’s imperative that every patch reference relates to an actual security advisory.

2. CVE Patch File Presence
   • The spec file now lists five patches (Patch0–Patch4). The directory, however, only contains four patch files:
     – CVE-2025-22868.patch
     – CVE-2025-30204.patch
     – CVE-2025-22870.patch
     – CVE-2024-51744.patch
   • There is no file for “CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch”. This mismatch means that one of the listed patches is missing from the package, which is a significant issue as the build process may fail or, worse, silently ignore a missed security fix.

3. Version Updates for Security Review
   • The package version (10.25.1) and release (4%{?dist}) remain consistent with previous entries. There is no new major version update here that would typically trigger a separate security review.
   • However, the introduction of a patch entry with a placeholder indicates that any security updates should be re-reviewed closely to ensure no vulnerability is left unpatched.

4. Changelog vs. Patch Files
   • The changelog lists CVE fixes for CVE-2025-22870, CVE-2024-51744, CVE-2025-30204, and CVE-2025-22868.
   • There is no mention (in the changelog) of any fix corresponding to “CVE-xxxx-xxxx”.
   • This inconsistency implies that either the placeholder patch was added in error or that it was intended for a CVE fix which was never finalized in the changelog. It is important that every CVE fix has both a corresponding patch file and a descriptive changelog entry.

5. Patch Application Methodology
   • The spec uses %autopatch -p1, which is an accepted and secure way to apply patches in Azure Linux packages.
   • All patches (if correctly numbered) would be automatically applied by this directive; however, since one patch is missing, the build may issue an error or unexpectedly skip it.
   • Therefore, the patch application mechanism itself is correct, but the set of patches listed must be validated.

6. Changelog Documentation
   • The changelog entries properly reference the CVE IDs for the other patches (e.g., “CVE-2025-22870”, “CVE-2024-51744”, “CVE-2025-30204”, “CVE-2025-22868”) and contain brief notes on the patch nature, which is good practice.
   • There is no entry for a CVE with the placeholder “CVE-xxxx-xxxx”.
   • Recommendation: Either remove the Patch4 line if it was included by mistake, or update it with a valid CVE ID and corresponding changelog entry that describes the fix applied. Ensure that if a new CVE is being fixed, it is fully documented and added to the package’s changelog.

Recommendations for Improvement:
• Remove or correct the Patch4 entry. If this patch was meant to address a specific CVE, update it with the proper CVE number (e.g., CVE-YYYY-XXXXX.patch) and ensure the file is added to the package directory.
• Verify that every patch listed in the spec is available in the source directory to prevent build failures and unpatched vulnerabilities.
• Update the changelog to include an entry explaining the purpose of any new CVE fix so that the security context is clear to reviewers.
• Double-check that patch numbering remains sequential and accurate after any removals or additions.
• Ensure that all CVE fixes include proper upstream attribution and a clear description in the changelog for future maintainers.

By addressing the placeholder patch entry and ensuring consistency between the patch files, spec file, and changelog, you can mitigate potential security risks and maintain proper patch management in line with Azure Linux security best practices.

---

Patch Verification for SPECS/azcopy/azcopy.spec

Below is the detailed verification report:

1. Verification of Patch Files Presence:

   • Spec file references the following patches:
     • Patch0: CVE-2025-22868.patch
     • Patch1: CVE-2025-30204.patch
     • Patch2: CVE-2025-22870.patch
     • Patch3: CVE-2024-51744.patch
     • Patch4: CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch
   • The package directory contains these files:
     • CVE-2025-22868.patch
     • CVE-2025-30204.patch
     • CVE-2025-22870.patch
     • CVE-2024-51744.patch
   • Issue: There is a missing file for Patch4. The file named “CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch” is not present in the directory. This indicates that either the file was omitted by mistake or the spec file contains a placeholder that was not updated.

2. Patch Files in Directory Not Referenced:

   • All patch files in the directory have corr...

(Analysis truncated. See full analysis in ADO logs)

---

This comment was automatically generated by the Azure Linux PR Check system. See ADO pipeline logs for full details.

📝 CONCLUSION (extracted from recommendations)

📝 CONCLUSION (extracted from recommendations)

• Remove or correct the Patch4 entry. If this patch was meant to address a specific CVE, update it with the proper CVE number (e.g., CVE-YYYY-XXXXX.patch) and ensure the file is added to the package directory.
• Verify that every patch listed in the spec is available in the source directory to prevent build failures and unpatched vulnerabilities.
• Update the changelog to include an entry explaining the purpose of any new CVE fix so that the security context is clear to reviewers.
• Double-check that patch numbering remains sequential and accurate after any removals or additions.
• Ensure that all CVE fixes include proper upstream attribution and a clear description in the changelog for future maintainers.
By addressing the placeholder patch entry and ensuring consistency between the patch files, spec file, and changelog, you can mitigate potential security risks and maintain proper patch management in line with Azure Linux security best practices.

Patch Verification for SPECS/azcopy/azcopy.spec

Below is the detailed verification report:

1. Verification of Patch Files Presence:
   • Spec file references the following patches:
     • Patch0: CVE-2025-22868.patch
     • Patch1: CVE-2025-30204.patch
     • Patch2: CVE-2025-22870.patch
     • Patch3: CVE-2024-51744.patch
     • Patch4: CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch
   • The package directory contains these files:
     • CVE-2025-22868.patch
     • CVE-2025-30204.patch
     • CVE-2025-22870.patch
     • CVE-2024-51744.patch
   • Issue: There is a missing file for Patch4. The file named “CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch” is not present in the directory. This indicates that either the file was omitted by mistake or the spec file contains a placeholder that was not updated.
2. Patch Files in Directory Not Referenced:
   • All patch files in the directory have corresponding references in the spec file except no extra patch files exist. The only discrepancy is the extraneous or placeholder entry for Patch4.
3. Sequential Ordering and Numbering:
   • The patch numbers in the spec file are sequential (Patch0 through Patch4).
   • However, because Patch4 is referencing an invalid CVE string (i.e. “xxxx-xxxx”), it stands out as incorrect even though the numbering is sequentially proper.

📝 CONCLUSION (extracted from recommendations)

4. CVE Patch Naming Conventions:
   • For Patch0, Patch1, Patch2, and Patch3, the filenames match the CVE IDs referenced in the spec content (i.e. CVE-2025-22868, CVE-2025-30204, CVE-2025-22870, CVE-2024-51744), which is in compliance with the naming conventions.
   • Patch4 “CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch” does not follow the CVE naming convention and appears to be a placeholder.

📝 CONCLUSION (extracted from recommendations)

📝 CONCLUSION (extracted from recommendations)

• Remove or update the Patch4 reference. A patch reference with "CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch" is clearly a placeholder and should not be shipped.
• Double-check the changelog to ensure that any CVE fixes announced are all correctly implemented via a corresponding patch. In the changelog, for example, CVE-2025-22870 and CVE-2024-51744 are mentioned but there is no mention for a fifth patch – this reinforces that Patch4 might be unintended.
• Always verify that new patches added in the spec have a corresponding file in the directory and that the filenames follow the standard CVE naming convention.
• Finally, ensure that all patch applications in the %prep section are using the proper mechanism (%autopatch or %patch directives as required by the packaging guidelines).
By addressing the issue with Patch4, you will avoid any build-time errors and maintain clarity and security compliance in your Azure Linux package.

CVE Validation for SPECS/azcopy/azcopy.spec

Below is a detailed analysis of the diff and the full spec with the current patch files:

1. CVE Coverage and Naming
    • The valid CVE patch files (CVE-2025-22868.patch, CVE-2025-30204.patch, CVE-2025-22870.patch, and CVE-2024-51744.patch) exactly correspond to the CVEs listed in the spec and changelog (except for CVE-2022-41717, which was patched in an earlier release).
    • The added line “Patch4: CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch” does not conform to the CVE naming convention (CVE-YYYY-XXXXX) and does not correspond to any actual file in the package directory. This appears to be a placeholder or mis-entry and should be removed or corrected.
2. Changelog and Matching CVE Patches
    • The changelog documents fixes for CVE-2025-22870, CVE-2024-51744, CVE-2025-30204, and CVE-2025-22868. These are each supported by a corresponding patch file.
    • There is no mention in the changelog of a patch for “CVE-xxxx-xxxx”, which reinforces the idea that this is either a placeholder or an error.
3. Patch Application and Spec Syntax
    • The patches are properly referenced with Patch0, Patch1, etc.
    • The use of the %autopatch directive (with “%autopatch -p1”) is correct. This directive will automatically apply any patches defined in the spec file’s Patch list.
    • Because of the extra “Patch4: CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch” entry, %autopatch will try to apply a non-existent/invalid patch. This could result in build failures or unexpected behavior.

📝 CONCLUSION (extracted from recommendations)

 a. Remove or Update the Dummy Patch:
  - If “CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch” was added accidentally, remove the line from the spec file.
  - If it was meant to represent an additional CVE fix, update the entry with the correct CVE identifier (following the format CVE-YYYY-XXXXX) and ensure that the corresponding patch file is present.
 b. Changelog Consistency:
  - Ensure that all CVE fixes applied in the build are noted in the changelog. In this case, since there is no actual patch for “CVE-xxxx-xxxx”, no changelog entry should be added until the correct fix is implemented.
  - Consider using a similar format for each entry (e.g., “Fix CVE-2025-22868 with an upstream patch” vs. “Patch CVE-2025-30204”) to improve consistency.
 c. Final Verification:
  - After removing or correcting the extra patch entry, verify that the patch numbering (Patch0, Patch1, etc.) is sequential and that all defined patches have corresponding files.
  - Run a test build to ensure that all patches apply correctly under %autopatch.
Overall, aside from the extraneous “Patch4: CVE-xxxx-xxxx.patch” entry, the spec file handles the CVE patches correctly and aligns with the listed patch files and changelog entries. Addressing the placeholder/dummy patch will resolve the potential issue.