Skip to content

CI: Make CVE scan blocking on PRs, informational on main#16287

Open
kevinjqliu wants to merge 8 commits into
apache:mainfrom
kevinjqliu:kevinjqliu/kafka-trivy-fix
Open

CI: Make CVE scan blocking on PRs, informational on main#16287
kevinjqliu wants to merge 8 commits into
apache:mainfrom
kevinjqliu:kevinjqliu/kafka-trivy-fix

Conversation

@kevinjqliu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@kevinjqliu kevinjqliu commented May 11, 2026

Follow up to #15430 and #16291.

This make the CVE scan blocking on PRs but only information on main (CVEs will be sent to the Github "security" tab)

Note that all (except 1) CVEs found was fix forward in #16290
The 1 leftover CVE is for Spark 3.4. Adding it to the trivy ignore list for now since we'll be removing Spark 3.4 very soon (#14122)
We should not use trivy ignore list in general, this is an exception.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <copilot@github.com>
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the INFRA label May 11, 2026
Co-authored-by: Copilot <copilot@github.com>
@kevinjqliu kevinjqliu changed the title CI: Fix Kafka Connect CVE scan to report without blocking and pin action versions CI: Make Kafka Connect CVE scan informational and push-only May 11, 2026
@rmoff
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

rmoff commented May 11, 2026

The idea of running on PR is in case the PR were to introduce a CVE.

@kevinjqliu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

The idea of running on PR is in case the PR were to introduce a CVE.

what about information only for main branch but blocking on PR?

- '2.*'
tags:
- 'apache-iceberg-**'
pull_request:
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we need to fail on PR and be informational on main. I actually found my way to this PR because the post-merge scan on #16279 failed, and I'd rather have seen those CVEs at review time than after they landed on main.

@kevinjqliu kevinjqliu changed the title CI: Make Kafka Connect CVE scan informational and push-only CI: Make Kafka Connect CVE scan blocking on PRs, informational on main May 11, 2026
@kevinjqliu kevinjqliu marked this pull request as draft May 11, 2026 19:08
@kevinjqliu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

made the change to block for PR.
should merge the CVE fix PR first (#16290)

@kevinjqliu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

one consideration is that there is a "unfixable" CVE in main (see #16290)

Known unfixable

CVE Modules Package Reason
CVE-2025-52999 spark-3.4 jackson-core@2.14.2 Pinned to 2.14.2 for Spark 3.4 compatibility. Fix requires 2.15.0+.

I think we could add this to a .trivyignore list for now. The issue will be resolved once we remove Spark 3.4, which should be very soon, right after the 1.11 release.
I generally dont like .trivyignore as we are purposing ignoring CVEs but for this specific instance, i think its the best path forward

@rmoff
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

rmoff commented May 12, 2026

I think we could add this to a .trivyignore list for now.

+1

@kevinjqliu kevinjqliu force-pushed the kevinjqliu/kafka-trivy-fix branch from f6f14d1 to 99162bd Compare May 12, 2026 16:54
kevinjqliu and others added 2 commits May 12, 2026 09:55
@kevinjqliu kevinjqliu changed the title CI: Make Kafka Connect CVE scan blocking on PRs, informational on main CI: Make CVE scan blocking on PRs, informational on main May 12, 2026
@kevinjqliu kevinjqliu force-pushed the kevinjqliu/kafka-trivy-fix branch from 9017725 to 72a4ea1 Compare May 12, 2026 17:06
kevinjqliu and others added 2 commits May 12, 2026 10:32
Co-authored-by: Copilot <copilot@github.com>
Co-authored-by: Copilot <copilot@github.com>
@kevinjqliu kevinjqliu marked this pull request as ready for review May 12, 2026 19:34
@kevinjqliu kevinjqliu requested a review from huaxingao May 12, 2026 19:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants