|Summary:||Missing rhn.redhat.com/errata entries|
|Product:||Red Hat Network||Reporter:||Mark J. Cox <mjc>|
|Component:||RHN/Backend||Assignee:||Grant Gainey <ggainey>|
|Status:||CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE||QA Contact:||joseph canton <jcanton>|
|Version:||RHN Stable||CC:||rhn-bugs, security-response-team|
|Fixed In Version:||5.0.2||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2007-07-25 15:15:25 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Mark J. Cox 2007-04-16 10:31:14 UTC
There is a regression with the /errata/ page handling on RHN Hosted: we are missing many non-RHEL errata on RHN. Two advisories for the old "Red Hat Application Server" product are not showing on /errata/. The second one used to be there but has vanished at some point. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2007-0164.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0157.html We're also missing RHSA-2006-0592, RHSA-2006-0161, RHSA-2006-0281 And RHSA-2006-0270 (directory server one) is missing but RHSA-2005-030 (also directory server) is there. Interestingly they appear on the CVE page; so https://rhn.redhat.com/cve/CVE-2006-1546.html links to http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0281.html which is missing. My suspicion is that some code designed to hide things for shadow updates is catching these issues. This is very serious as these errata are not available elsewhere from Red Hat.
Comment 1 Grant Gainey 2007-04-30 15:10:46 UTC
So the bug is due to over-zealous hiding of shadow-channels. The assumption made in the code is that, if a channel isn't associated with a Product, it must be shadow - which is incorrect. Recent discussion with the security team resulted in this: ===== Looking at the errata tool, all the shadow channels have -shadow appended to their name. So I'd say that your test ought to look for the presence of "-shadow" to make the determination if it's a shadow errata. example: rhel-x86_64-es-3 rhel-x86_64-es-3-shadow rhel-s390-as-4-extras rhel-s390-as-4-extras-shadow ===== Assuming we can make sure the shadow-channel-creation tools enforce this (as opposed to having some human interaction making it happen), then the Errata.pm::is_public() code can be taught to rely on "rhnChannel.name.upperCase.endsWith("SHADOW") == NOT PUBLIC
Comment 2 Mark J. Cox 2007-04-30 15:28:19 UTC
We need a short-term fix as soon as possible: RHN is the only source of many of these errata which have vanished. When can this change be made on RHN hosted live?
Comment 3 Grant Gainey 2007-04-30 15:56:55 UTC
Not until after it's been tested to make sure we're not breaking more than we're fixing. Right now we're trying to set up a testcase in WEBDEV for "errata exists in a shadow channel" - until I can see errata being -hidden- in that case, I can't ship a fix. If you search for the errata by advisory-number, you can find them. The problem is specifically a UI issue on the Perl rhn./errata/foo.html pages only. For example: https://rhn.redhat.com/rhn/errata/details/Details.do?eid=3638 shows us RHSA-2006:157 Obviosuly only useful if you're a registered user, but at least we know the data is there and available, it's just a matter of easing the UI restriction while not allowing for embargoed errata to be exposed.
Comment 4 Mark J. Cox 2007-04-30 17:31:05 UTC
Understood, I'm after an idea of how long it'll be before a fix is available so I can work out if we need to do any mitigation.
Comment 5 Bret McMillan 2007-05-11 15:51:02 UTC
Aligning to rhn502, think end of June. Grant: why not just make the appropriate rhnProduct & rhnProductLine rows, instead of weaker string checks?
Comment 6 Mark J. Cox 2007-05-24 13:00:54 UTC
Just to make sure I underline how serious this issue is to us; we released a security update today for example for Red Hat Developer Suite which isn't accessible via Red Hat Network /errata/ page even though we listed the URL in the advisory we've sent out. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2007-0328.html --> missing
Comment 7 Grant Gainey 2007-06-06 15:34:59 UTC
*** Bug 238703 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 Grant Gainey 2007-06-06 18:19:41 UTC
The only things that need to be done now, is to run the data-changes against prod, and then get the new product-list page into prod so that one can see the RHX Product
Comment 9 Grant Gainey 2007-06-07 17:29:44 UTC
The data changes are already active in PRODUCTION. The rhn.redhat.com/errata page will not show an "RHX" product-line until 502 (and this bug) is released to production.
Comment 10 Grant Gainey 2007-06-15 12:49:00 UTC
We made it into DEV - woot
Comment 11 Grant Gainey 2007-06-18 21:50:51 UTC
ON_QA, ready for verification
Comment 12 joseph canton 2007-06-27 18:14:51 UTC
QA Test Cases and comments: RHSA-2007:0164 Following 3 test cases show data changes on live are verified. found on live w/ Erratum Search found on rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel4-aps-2-errata.html (Application Server v2) RSHA-2006:0592 and RSHA-2006:157 found on live w/ Erratum Search found on rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel3-apps-2-errata.html (Application Server v1 EL3) On Webqa, verify RHX added to product-list page shows: Verified, rhn.webqa.redhat.com/errata shows Red Hat eXchange as latt item. Changing status to verified. J.
Comment 13 James Bowes 2007-07-25 15:15:25 UTC