test 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]

❌ ERROR ISSUES DETECTED

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

❌ Errors

• Missing Patch File: Patch file 'CVE-2024-xxxx.patch' is referenced in the spec but not found in the directory
  • Fix: Add the missing patch file or update the Patch reference

🧠 Analysis

• The addition of a new patch line (Patch4: CVE-2024-xxxx.patch) in the spec file raises concern. The “xxxx” suffix is not a valid CVE identifier; it appears to be a placeholder. If left in this state, it will mislead users and maintainers into believing that an additional security fix has been applied while—in fact—the corresponding patch is missing.
 • Applying an undefined or non-existent patch could lead to build failures or, worse, shipping a package that claims to mitigate a vulnerability that is still open. Ensure that every patch reference matches a valid, vetted, and present file.

2. Patch Files in the Package Directory
    • The file list shows the following patches:
     - CVE-2025-22868.patch
     - CVE-2025-30204.patch
     - CVE-2025-22870.patch
     - CVE-2024-51744.patch
    • The new reference—CVE-2024-xxxx.patch—is missing from the directory. Recommendation: Remove or replace the placeholder reference with a proper file if there is an intended security fix.

3. Version Updates and Security Review
    • The package’s version (10.25.1) and release (4) have not changed in a way that would normally raise concerns (no unexpected bump or reversion).
    • However, adding a new patch reference without an actual patch file (or corresponding changelog entry) should be flagged for security review since it might indicate an oversight in addressing a vulnerability.

4. Matching CVEs in Changelog vs. Spec
    • The changelog entries document fixes for CVE-2025-22868, CVE-2025-30204, CVE-2025-22870, and CVE-2024-51744.
    • The referenced new patch (CVE-2024-xxxx.patch) does not appear in the changelog. Recommendation: Either remove the patch reference from the spec file or update the changelog with a description and valid CVE number when the patch is correctly provided.

5. Patch Application Methodology
    • The %prep section uses “%autopatch -p1,” which is the recommended directive for automatically applying all patches listed as Patch.
    • This ensures that valid patches are applied in sequential order. However, if autopatch reaches a non-existent file (i.e., CVE-2024-xxxx.patch) it will likely fail the build. Make sure that all listed patches are available.

6. Changelog Documentation for CVE Fixes
    • The changelog entries properly reference CVE IDs for the documented fixes except for the new placeholder (CVE-2024-xxxx).
    • It is important that any security patch entry in the spec is accompanied by a clear changelog note that both identifies the CVE and explains that an upstream patch or mitigation has been applied.
    • Recommendation: Either remove the Patch4 reference until you have a valid patch and changelog entry, or update both with the correct information.

Overall Recommendations for Improvement:
 • Remove or update the “Patch4: CVE-2024-xxxx.patch” entry. If the intention was to add a new security patch, ensure that (a) a proper CVE identifier (matching the format CVE-YYYY-XXXXX) is used, (b) the corresponding patch file is added to the package directory, and (c) the changelog includes an entry describing the fix with appropriate attribution.
 • Verify that the sequential numbering of patches remains consistent once changes are made.
 • Finally, perform a security review on the intended changes to ensure that the patches address the intended vulnerabilities and that no new security regressions are introduced.

Following these steps will help ensure that the package clearly communicates its security posture and that no unintended gaps are introduced.

---

Patch Verification for SPECS/azcopy/azcopy.spec

Below is the detailed verification report:

1. Patch File Presence
    • The spec file lists five patch references:
     – Patch0: CVE-2025-22868.patch
     – Patch1: CVE-2025-30204.patch
     – Patch2: CVE-2025-22870.patch
     – Patch3: CVE-2024-51744.patch
     – Patch4: CVE-2024-xxxx.patch
    • In the package directory, four patch files are present (one for each valid CVE):
     – CVE-2025-22868.patch
     – CVE-2025-30204.patch
     – CVE-2025-22870.patch
     – CVE-2024-51744.patch
    • Issue: The patch referenced as Patch4 (CVE-2024-xxxx.patch) is missing from the directory. It appears to be a placeholder or an incorrectly named file.

2. Unreferenced Patch Files
    • There are no extra patch files in the directory; every patch file present is referenced in the spec if you exclude the erroneous Patch4.
    • No action is needed for extra, unreferenced patches.

3. Sequential and Ordered Patch Numbers
    • The patch numbers in the spec file (Patch0 through Patch4) are sequential.
    • However, the content for Patch4 is problematic—it does not follow the naming convention and likely should be removed or replaced.

4. CVE Naming Conventions
    • The three valid CVE patches (CVE-2025-22868.patch, CVE-2025-30204.patch, CVE-2025-22870.patch, CVE-2024-51744.patch) exactly match the CVE IDs referenced in the spec and follow the required naming convention (CVE-YYYY-XXXXX.patch).
    • The Patch4 reference (“CVE-2024-xxxx.patch”) does not conform to this format. It appears to be a placeholder that should either be corrected with the valid CVE identifier or removed entirely if it is no longer applicable.

Recommendations:
 1. Remove or correct Patch4:
  – If there is a valid CVE fix that needs to be applied, update the reference with the correct CVE ID (e.g., CVE-2024-12345.patch) and ensure the corresponding patch file is added to the package directory.
  – If Patch4 was included in error, remove the line from the spec file.
 2. Verify the changelog:
  – Confirm that the entry describing “Patch CVE-2024-51744” doesn’t inadvertently imply the application of Patch4. If the changelog needs to cover a patch for “CVE-2024-xxxx”, update it accordingly.
 3. After making changes, run a build test to ensure that the patch application sequence (using %autopatch) works as expected without error.

By addressing the missing or incorrectly referenced Patch4, the package will adhere to both security patching best practices and consistency in naming conventions.

---

CVE Validation for SPECS/azcopy/azcopy.spec

Below is the detailed review of the CVE patch integration:

1. CVE-to-Patch File Coverage
    • The spec file now lists five Patch directives (Patch0 through Patch4) with the following CVE identifiers:
     – Patch0: CVE-2025-22868.patch
     – Patch1: CVE-2025-30204.patch
     – Patch2: CVE-2025-22870.patch
     – Patch3: CVE-2024-51744.patch
     – Patch4: CVE-2024-xxxx.patch
    • However, the actual patch file directory contains only four patch files:
     – CVE-2024-51744.patch
     – CVE-2025-22870.patch
     – CVE-2025-30204.patch
     – CVE-2025-22868.patch
    • This shows that the patch file named “CVE-2024-xxxx.patch” is missing. The “xxxx” portion is clearly a placeholder or typo and does not match a valid CVE or an available patch file.

2. Changelog vs. Patch Files
    • The changelog lists fixes for CVE-2025-22870, CVE-2024-51744, CVE-2025-30204, and CVE-2025-22868—all of which are properly represented by actual patch files.
    • There is no changelog entry for any patch corresponding to “CVE-2024-xxxx,” which supports the conclusion that this entry was added in error or is incomplete.

3. Patch Directives and Application
    • The patches are referenced with Patch0–Patch4 in the spec file and are applied via the %autopatch -p1 directive. This is in line with best practices provided that every Patch directive maps to a file.
    • Since Patch4 (CVE-2024-xxxx.patch) does not have a corresponding file, this will cause a build failure and may lead to potential security regressions (if a patch was intended) or simply a misconfiguration.

4. CVE ID Formatting and Placeholders
    • All CVE IDs should be in the format “CVE-YYYY-NNNNN” (or similar fixed-length numeric portion). The “xxxx” in CVE-2024-xxxx is clearly not valid. This inconsistency should be corrected—either by removing the entry if it is not needed or by replacing it with the proper CVE identifier if a new vulnerability is being addressed.

5. Changelog Documentation
    • The changelog entries are generally adequate for documenting each CVE fix (e.g., “Fix CVE-2025-22868 with an upstream patch”).
    • However, because there is no changelog entry for Patch4, and since this patch directive does not map to an actual file, the changelog doesn’t fully explain the security updates. This inconsistency must be resolved.

6. Patch Numbering and Sequence
    • The numbering of patches (Patch0–Patch4) is sequential, which is correct in theory.
    • The introduction of an extra patch (Patch4) that is not backed by an actual file breaks the pattern and should be corrected.

Recommendations for Remediation:
 a. Remove or correct the Patch4 entry:
  – If there is no additional CVE fix pending, remove the line “Patch4: CVE-2024-xxxx.patch” from the spec file.
  – If a new vulnerability is being fixed, update the CVE ID with the correct value and ensure that the corresponding patch file is present in the package directory.

 b. Update the changelog:
  – If you remove the Patch4 entry, no changelog change is needed.
  – If you add a new valid CVE fix for Patch4, add an entry in the changelog documenting the fix (for example, “- Fix CVE-2024- with appropriate upstream patch”).

 c. Validate the build:
  – After making the above changes, verify that the build process runs without errors and that all patches are applied correctly via %autopatch.

In summary, the only issue detected is the extra Patch4 entry referencing “CVE-2024-xxxx.patch” which has no corresponding file and an invalid CVE ID format. Addressing this discrepancy will ensure that the package’s security patches track correctly, preventing build failures and avoiding potential security oversights.

See ADO pipeline logs for complete analysis.

📝 Recommendations

1. Security Implications
    • The addition of a new patch line (Patch4: CVE-2024-xxxx.patch) in the spec file raises concern. The “xxxx” suffix is not a valid CVE identifier; it appears to be a placeholder. If left in this state, it will mislead users and maintainers into believing that an additional security fix has been applied while—in fact—the corresponding patch is missing.
    • Applying an undefined or non-existent patch could lead to build failures or, worse, shipping a package that claims to mitigate a vulnerability that is still open. Ensure that every patch reference matches a valid, vetted, and present file.
2. Patch Files in the Package Directory
    • The file list shows the following patches:
     - CVE-2025-22868.patch
     - CVE-2025-30204.patch
     - CVE-2025-22870.patch
     - CVE-2024-51744.patch

3. Version Updates and Security Review
    • The package’s version (10.25.1) and release (4) have not changed in a way that would normally raise concerns (no unexpected bump or reversion).
    • However, adding a new patch reference without an actual patch file (or corresponding changelog entry) should be flagged for security review since it might indicate an oversight in addressing a vulnerability.
4. Matching CVEs in Changelog vs. Spec
    • The changelog entries document fixes for CVE-2025-22868, CVE-2025-30204, CVE-2025-22870, and CVE-2024-51744.

5. Patch Application Methodology
    • The %prep section uses “%autopatch -p1,” which is the recommended directive for automatically applying all patches listed as Patch.
    • This ensures that valid patches are applied in sequential order. However, if autopatch reaches a non-existent file (i.e., CVE-2024-xxxx.patch) it will likely fail the build. Make sure that all listed patches are available.
6. Changelog Documentation for CVE Fixes
    • The changelog entries properly reference CVE IDs for the documented fixes except for the new placeholder (CVE-2024-xxxx).
    • It is important that any security patch entry in the spec is accompanied by a clear changelog note that both identifies the CVE and explains that an upstream patch or mitigation has been applied.

 • Remove or update the “Patch4: CVE-2024-xxxx.patch” entry. If the intention was to add a new security patch, ensure that (a) a proper CVE identifier (matching the format CVE-YYYY-XXXXX) is used, (b) the corresponding patch file is added to the package directory, and (c) the changelog includes an entry describing the fix with appropriate attribution.
 • Verify that the sequential numbering of patches remains consistent once changes are made.
 • Finally, perform a security review on the intended changes to ensure that the patches address the intended vulnerabilities and that no new security regressions are introduced.
Following these steps will help ensure that the package clearly communicates its security posture and that no unintended gaps are introduced.

Patch Verification for SPECS/azcopy/azcopy.spec

Below is the detailed verification report:

1. Patch File Presence
    • The spec file lists five patch references:
     – Patch0: CVE-2025-22868.patch
     – Patch1: CVE-2025-30204.patch
     – Patch2: CVE-2025-22870.patch
     – Patch3: CVE-2024-51744.patch
     – Patch4: CVE-2024-xxxx.patch
    • In the package directory, four patch files are present (one for each valid CVE):
     – CVE-2025-22868.patch
     – CVE-2025-30204.patch
     – CVE-2025-22870.patch
     – CVE-2024-51744.patch
    • Issue: The patch referenced as Patch4 (CVE-2024-xxxx.patch) is missing from the directory. It appears to be a placeholder or an incorrectly named file.
2. Unreferenced Patch Files
    • There are no extra patch files in the directory; every patch file present is referenced in the spec if you exclude the erroneous Patch4.
    • No action is needed for extra, unreferenced patches.
3. Sequential and Ordered Patch Numbers
    • The patch numbers in the spec file (Patch0 through Patch4) are sequential.
    • However, the content for Patch4 is problematic—it does not follow the naming convention and likely should be removed or replaced.
4. CVE Naming Conventions
    • The three valid CVE patches (CVE-2025-22868.patch, CVE-2025-30204.patch, CVE-2025-22870.patch, CVE-2024-51744.patch) exactly match the CVE IDs referenced in the spec and follow the required naming convention (CVE-YYYY-XXXXX.patch).
    • The Patch4 reference (“CVE-2024-xxxx.patch”) does not conform to this format. It appears to be a placeholder that should either be corrected with the valid CVE identifier or removed entirely if it is no longer applicable.

 1. Remove or correct Patch4:
  – If there is a valid CVE fix that needs to be applied, update the reference with the correct CVE ID (e.g., CVE-2024-12345.patch) and ensure the corresponding patch file is added to the package directory.
  – If Patch4 was included in error, remove the line from the spec file.
 2. Verify the changelog:
  – Confirm that the entry describing “Patch CVE-2024-51744” doesn’t inadvertently imply the application of Patch4. If the changelog needs to cover a patch for “CVE-2024-xxxx”, update it accordingly.
 3. After making changes, run a build test to ensure that the patch application sequence (using %autopatch) works as expected without error.
By addressing the missing or incorrectly referenced Patch4, the package will adhere to both security patching best practices and consistency in naming conventions.

CVE Validation for SPECS/azcopy/azcopy.spec

Below is the detailed review of the CVE patch integration:

1. CVE-to-Patch File Coverage
    • The spec file now lists five Patch directives (Patch0 through Patch4) with the following CVE identifiers:
     – Patch0: CVE-2025-22868.patch
     – Patch1: CVE-2025-30204.patch
     – Patch2: CVE-2025-22870.patch
     – Patch3: CVE-2024-51744.patch
     – Patch4: CVE-2024-xxxx.patch
    • However, the actual patch file directory contains only four patch files:
     – CVE-2024-51744.patch
     – CVE-2025-22870.patch
     – CVE-2025-30204.patch
     – CVE-2025-22868.patch
    • This shows that the patch file named “CVE-2024-xxxx.patch” is missing. The “xxxx” portion is clearly a placeholder or typo and does not match a valid CVE or an available patch file.
2. Changelog vs. Patch Files
    • The changelog lists fixes for CVE-2025-22870, CVE-2024-51744, CVE-2025-30204, and CVE-2025-22868—all of which are properly represented by actual patch files.
    • There is no changelog entry for any patch corresponding to “CVE-2024-xxxx,” which supports the conclusion that this entry was added in error or is incomplete.
3. Patch Directives and Application
    • The patches are referenced with Patch0–Patch4 in the spec file and are applied via the %autopatch -p1 directive. This is in line with best practices provided that every Patch directive maps to a file.
    • Since Patch4 (CVE-2024-xxxx.patch) does not have a corresponding file, this will cause a build failure and may lead to potential security regressions (if a patch was intended) or simply a misconfiguration.
4. CVE ID Formatting and Placeholders
    • All CVE IDs should be in the format “CVE-YYYY-NNNNN” (or similar fixed-length numeric portion). The “xxxx” in CVE-2024-xxxx is clearly not valid. This inconsistency should be corrected—either by removing the entry if it is not needed or by replacing it with the proper CVE identifier if a new vulnerability is being addressed.
5. Changelog Documentation
    • The changelog entries are generally adequate for documenting each CVE fix (e.g., “Fix CVE-2025-22868 with an upstream patch”).
    • However, because there is no changelog entry for Patch4, and since this patch directive does not map to an actual file, the changelog doesn’t fully explain the security updates. This inconsistency must be resolved.
6. Patch Numbering and Sequence
    • The numbering of patches (Patch0–Patch4) is sequential, which is correct in theory.
    • The introduction of an extra patch (Patch4) that is not backed by an actual file breaks the pattern and should be corrected.

 a. Remove or correct the Patch4 entry:
  – If there is no additional CVE fix pending, remove the line “Patch4: CVE-2024-xxxx.patch” from the spec file.
  – If a new vulnerability is being fixed, update the CVE ID with the correct value and ensure that the corresponding patch file is present in the package directory.
 b. Update the changelog:
  – If you remove the Patch4 entry, no changelog change is needed.
  – If you add a new valid CVE fix for Patch4, add an entry in the changelog documenting the fix (for example, “- Fix CVE-2024- with appropriate upstream patch”).
 c. Validate the build:
  – After making the above changes, verify that the build process runs without errors and that all patches are applied correctly via %autopatch.

---

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