[Bug 2076419] [NEW] lxml: Does not respect compiler flags

[Julian Andres Klode]

Public bug reported:

[Impact]
The packaging does not respect compiler flags, notably hardening flags like the stack protector, as well as frame pointer, as it never uses dpkg-buildflags and is still old manual style.

This means there is a higher security risk, which given the nature of
the library seems ill-advised, and the lack of frame pointers hampers
profiling.

[Test plan]
Look at the build log and see that the build flags have been passed, notably stuff like

-fno-strict-overflow -Wsign-compare -DNDEBUG -g -O2 -Wall -g -O2 -Werror=implicit-function-declaration -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer -ffile-prefix-map=/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>=. -fstack-protector-strong -fstack-clash-protection -Wformat -Werror=for
mat-security -fcf-protection

Parse some xml and see that it works

[Where problems could occur]
Hardening flags could surface existing (possibly security) bugs that have been asymptomatic so far; frame pointers will incur some slow down.

** Affects: lxml (Ubuntu)
     Importance: Undecided
     Assignee: Julian Andres Klode (juliank)
         Status: Fix Committed

** Affects: lxml (Ubuntu Noble)
     Importance: Undecided
         Status: New

** Changed in: lxml (Ubuntu)
       Status: New => In Progress

** Changed in: lxml (Ubuntu)
     Assignee: (unassigned) => Julian Andres Klode (juliank)

** Also affects: lxml (Ubuntu Noble)
   Importance: Undecided
       Status: New

** Changed in: lxml (Ubuntu)
       Status: In Progress => Fix Committed

** Description changed:

  [Impact]
  The packaging does not respect compiler flags, notably hardening and frame pointer, as it never uses dpkg-buildflags and is still old manual style.
+ 
+ This means there is a higher security risk, which given the nature of
+ the library seems ill-advised, and the lack of frame pointers hampers
+ profiling.
  
  [Test plan]
  Look at the build log and see that the build flags have been passed, notably stuff like
  
  -fno-strict-overflow -Wsign-compare -DNDEBUG -g -O2 -Wall -g -O2 -Werror=implicit-function-declaration -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer -ffile-prefix-map=/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>=. -fstack-protector-strong -fstack-clash-protection -Wformat -Werror=for
  mat-security -fcf-protection
  
  [Where problems could occur]
  Hardening flags could surface existing (possibly security) bugs that have been asymptomatic so far; frame pointers will incur some slow down.

** Description changed:

  [Impact]
- The packaging does not respect compiler flags, notably hardening and frame pointer, as it never uses dpkg-buildflags and is still old manual style.
+ The packaging does not respect compiler flags, notably hardening flags like the stack protector, as well as frame pointer, as it never uses dpkg-buildflags and is still old manual style.
  
  This means there is a higher security risk, which given the nature of
  the library seems ill-advised, and the lack of frame pointers hampers
  profiling.
  
  [Test plan]
  Look at the build log and see that the build flags have been passed, notably stuff like
  
  -fno-strict-overflow -Wsign-compare -DNDEBUG -g -O2 -Wall -g -O2 -Werror=implicit-function-declaration -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer -ffile-prefix-map=/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>=. -fstack-protector-strong -fstack-clash-protection -Wformat -Werror=for
  mat-security -fcf-protection
  
  [Where problems could occur]
  Hardening flags could surface existing (possibly security) bugs that have been asymptomatic so far; frame pointers will incur some slow down.

** Description changed:

  [Impact]
  The packaging does not respect compiler flags, notably hardening flags like the stack protector, as well as frame pointer, as it never uses dpkg-buildflags and is still old manual style.
  
  This means there is a higher security risk, which given the nature of
  the library seems ill-advised, and the lack of frame pointers hampers
  profiling.
  
  [Test plan]
  Look at the build log and see that the build flags have been passed, notably stuff like
  
  -fno-strict-overflow -Wsign-compare -DNDEBUG -g -O2 -Wall -g -O2 -Werror=implicit-function-declaration -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer -ffile-prefix-map=/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>=. -fstack-protector-strong -fstack-clash-protection -Wformat -Werror=for
  mat-security -fcf-protection
  
+ Parse some xml and see that it works
+ 
  [Where problems could occur]
  Hardening flags could surface existing (possibly security) bugs that have been asymptomatic so far; frame pointers will incur some slow down.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to lxml in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2076419

Title:
  lxml: Does not respect compiler flags

Status in lxml package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Committed
Status in lxml source package in Noble:
  New

Bug description:
  [Impact]
  The packaging does not respect compiler flags, notably hardening flags like the stack protector, as well as frame pointer, as it never uses dpkg-buildflags and is still old manual style.

  This means there is a higher security risk, which given the nature of
  the library seems ill-advised, and the lack of frame pointers hampers
  profiling.

  [Test plan]
  Look at the build log and see that the build flags have been passed, notably stuff like

  -fno-strict-overflow -Wsign-compare -DNDEBUG -g -O2 -Wall -g -O2 -Werror=implicit-function-declaration -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer -ffile-prefix-map=/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>=. -fstack-protector-strong -fstack-clash-protection -Wformat -Werror=for
  mat-security -fcf-protection

  Parse some xml and see that it works

  [Where problems could occur]
  Hardening flags could surface existing (possibly security) bugs that have been asymptomatic so far; frame pointers will incur some slow down.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxml/+bug/2076419/+subscriptions