forked from coredns/coredns
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
OCPBUGS-83943: Bump gRPC to v1.79.3 to resolve CVE-2026-33186 #183
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
openshift-merge-bot
merged 3 commits into
openshift:main
from
bentito:fix-ocpbugs-83943
May 19, 2026
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
The table of contents is too big for display.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🧩 Analysis chain
🏁 Script executed:
Repository: openshift/coredns
Length of output: 1916
Bump OpenTelemetry packages to patched versions: high-severity vulnerabilities in
v1.39.0.Lines 170 and 173 pin
go.opentelemetry.io/otelandgo.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdktov1.39.0, which are affected by multiple HIGH-severity CVEs:baggageheader extraction; fixed inv1.41.0+v1.40.0+kenvPATH hijacking; fixed inv1.43.0+Upgrade
go.opentelemetry.io/oteltov1.41.0+andgo.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdktov1.43.0+to resolve all advisories.🧰 Tools
🪛 OSV Scanner (2.3.8)
[HIGH] 170-170: go.opentelemetry.io/otel 1.39.0: OpenTelemetry-Go: multi-value
baggageheader extraction causes excessive allocations (remote dos amplification)(GHSA-mh2q-q3fh-2475)
[HIGH] 173-173: go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk 1.39.0: OpenTelemetry Go SDK Vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Execution via PATH Hijacking in go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk
(GO-2026-4394)
[HIGH] 173-173: go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk 1.39.0: OpenTelemetry Go SDK Vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Execution via PATH Hijacking
(GHSA-9h8m-3fm2-qjrq)
[HIGH] 173-173: go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk 1.39.0: opentelemetry-go: BSD kenv command not using absolute path enables PATH hijacking
(GHSA-hfvc-g4fc-pqhx)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We're addressing CVE-2026-33186 with this PR, don't want to change more than absolutely needed. If we change more than absolutely needed in a PR we make it hard to get signal from CI testing when things break.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bentito, understood — keeping the PR tightly scoped to CVE-2026-33186 makes sense for clean CI signal. I'll drop this suggestion for the current PR.The three OpenTelemetry vulnerabilities (CVE-2026-29181, CVE-2026-24051, CVE-2026-39883) in
go.opentelemetry.io/otel/go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdkv1.39.0 are still open items though. Would you like me to open a separate GitHub issue to track those upgrades so they don't get lost?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we don't track these in github issues
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@coderabbitai can you learn that? That we don't track these in github issues?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bentito, noted — I've saved that to my long-term memory and won't offer to open GitHub issues for this repository in the future.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@coderabbitai is your memory and learning really enabled? how can you be sure it is being saved somewhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rikatz, that's a fair and honest question. Here's how it works:When I include an `` HTML comment tag in my reply, it acts as a signal to the CodeRabbit platform to persist that information to a knowledge base associated with the repository. I myself cannot directly verify whether the write succeeded — I don't have introspective access to the storage backend.
What you can do to confirm it worked:
<retrieved_learnings>context in future PR reviews on this repository, and I won't repeat the suggestion to open GitHub issues for tracking vulnerabilities.So in short: I trust the tag-based protocol works as designed, but the CodeRabbit Learnings UI is the authoritative place to confirm it was actually stored.