@@ -208,12 +208,14 @@ def check_cves(d, patched_cves):
if cve in cve_whitelist:
bb.note("%s-%s has been whitelisted for %s" % (product, pv, cve))
+ # TODO: this should be in the report as 'whitelisted'
+ patched_cves.add(cve)
elif cve in patched_cves:
bb.note("%s has been patched" % (cve))
else:
to_append = False
if (operator_start == '=' and pv == version_start):
- cves_unpatched.append(cve)
+ to_append = True
else:
if operator_start:
try:
@@ -243,8 +245,11 @@ def check_cves(d, patched_cves):
to_append = to_append_start or to_append_end
if to_append:
+ bb.note("%s-%s is vulnerable to %s" % (product, pv, cve))
cves_unpatched.append(cve)
- bb.debug(2, "%s-%s is not patched for %s" % (product, pv, cve))
+ else:
+ bb.note("%s-%s is not vulnerable to %s" % (product, pv, cve))
+ patched_cves.add(cve)
conn.close()
return (list(patched_cves), cves_unpatched)
CVEs that are whitelisted or were not vulnerable when there are version comparisons were not included in the report, so alter the logic to ensure that all relevant CVEs are in the report for completeness. Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com> --- meta/classes/cve-check.bbclass | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) -- 2.20.1 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core