[Low] Patch ruby for CVE-2025-58767

[Ratiranjan5]

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

• Patch ruby for CVE-2025-58767
• Astrolabe Patch Reference: ruby/rexml@5859bde
• Patch Modified: NO
• Some hunk was failed, so applied them manually.

Change Log

• new file: SPECS/ruby/CVE-2025-58767.patch
• modified: SPECS/ruby/ruby.spec

Does this affect the toolchain?

NO

Associated issues

• #xxxx

Links to CVEs

• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-58767

Test Methodology

• Pipeline build id: xxxx

[Kanishk-Bansal]

Buddy Build

[Ratiranjan5]

Buddy Build

Buddy Build passed.

[bhagyapathak]

• Patch Modified: NO
• Some hunk was failed, so applied them manually.

@Ratiranjan5 Could you please explain the reason for the original patch application failure and mention the modifications you made to the patch?

[Ratiranjan5]

• Patch Modified: NO
• Some hunk was failed, so applied them manually.

@Ratiranjan5 Could you please explain the reason for the original patch application failure and mention the modifications you made to the patch?

The original patch failed to apply cleanly due to a mismatch in method usage within our codebase.

In the upstream patch, the condition was written as:
match?(/\s*/um, true)
Whereas in our local codebase, the equivalent line was:
match(/\s*/um, true)

Although both expressions check for whitespace, they differ in return type:

match? returns a boolean (true/false), while
match returns a MatchData object or nil.

This difference caused the hunk to not match during patch application, resulting in a conflict.