Upstream has released version 97.0.4692.71 on January 4: https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2022/01/stable-channel-update-for-desktop.html It fixes several new security issues. This is the current version in the stable channel: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/search/label/Stable%20updates
CC: (none) => nicolas.salguero
Upstream has released version 97.0.4692.99 on January 19: https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2022/01/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_19.html It fixes several new security issues. This is the current version in the stable channel: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/search/label/Stable%20updates
Summary: chromium-browser-stable new security issues fixed in 97.0.4692.71 => chromium-browser-stable new security issues fixed in 97.0.4692.99CC: (none) => mageia
ne< version pushed in mga8: src: chromium-browser-stable-97.0.4692.99-1.mga8 rpms: chromium-browser-stable-97.0.4692.99-1.mga8 chromium-browser-97.0.4692.99-1.mga8
Assignee: cjw => qa-bugsCC: (none) => cjw
I have been testing this version and package (built on another machine though) for a week or so, without any issue. ``` System configuration: ===================== System: Host: cbct-desk Kernel: 5.15.16-desktop-1.mga8 x86_64 bits: 64 Desktop: KDE Plasma 5.20.4 Distro: Mageia 8 mga8 Machine: Type: Desktop System: ASUS product: N/A v: N/A serial: <superuser required> Mobo: ASUSTeK model: TUF GAMING B550M-PLUS v: Rev X.0x serial: <superuser required> UEFI: American Megatrends v: 2423 date: 08/10/2021 CPU: Info: 12-Core AMD Ryzen 9 5900X [MT MCP] speed: 4260 MHz min/max: 2200/3700 MHz Graphics: Device-1: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD/ATI] Ellesmere [Radeon RX 470/480/570/570X/580/580X/590] driver: amdgpu v: kernel Display: x11 server: Mageia X.org 1.20.14 driver: amdgpu,v4l resolution: 2560x1440~60Hz OpenGL: renderer: AMD Radeon RX 570 Series (POLARIS10 DRM 3.42.0 5.15.16-desktop-1.mga8 LLVM 11.0.1) v: 4.6 Mesa 21.3.4 Network: Device-1: Realtek RTL8125 2.5GbE driver: r8169 Drives: Local Storage: total: 1.59 TiB used: 556.61 GiB (34.1%) ID-1: /dev/nvme0n1 vendor: Seagate model: FireCuda 520 SSD ZP500GM30002 size: 465.76 GiB ID-2: /dev/sda vendor: Western Digital model: WD10EZEX-00RKKA0 size: 931.51 GiB ID-3: /dev/sdb vendor: Samsung model: SSD 850 EVO 250GB size: 232.89 GiB Optical-1: /dev/sr0 vendor: HL-DT-ST model: DVDRAM GH24NS95 dev-links: cdrom,cdrw,dvd,dvdrw Features: speed: 12 multisession: yes audio: yes dvd: yes rw: cd-r,cd-rw,dvd-r,dvd-ram USB: Hub: 1-0:1 info: Full speed (or root) Hub ports: 10 rev: 2.0 Device-1: 1-6:2 info: ASUSTek AURA LED Controller type: <vendor specific> rev: 2.0 Hub: 1-7:3 info: Genesys Logic Hub ports: 4 rev: 2.0 Hub: 1-9:4 info: Genesys Logic Hub ports: 4 rev: 2.0 Hub: 2-0:1 info: Full speed (or root) Hub ports: 4 rev: 3.1 Hub: 3-0:1 info: Full speed (or root) Hub ports: 4 rev: 2.0 Device-1: 3-1:2 info: Logitech Unifying Receiver type: Keyboard,Mouse,HID rev: 2.0 Device-2: 3-2:3 info: Logitech HD Webcam C525 type: Audio,Video rev: 2.0 Device-3: 3-3:4 info: ASUSTek ASUS USB-BT500 type: Bluetooth rev: 1.1 Hub: 4-0:1 info: Full speed (or root) Hub ports: 4 rev: 3.1 openCL AMD by installing manually some files of amdgpu-pro-20.20-1089974-rhel-8.2 ```
CC: (none) => chb0
MGA8-64 Plasma on Lenovo B50 in Dutch No installation issues. Checked on newspaper sitee and youtube, no problems found although there is loads of feedback o the CLI, but that doesn't seem to matter.
CC: (none) => herman.viaene
Tested mga8-64 Jetstream, general browsing, Youtube video, all OK
Whiteboard: (none) => mga8-64-okCC: (none) => wrw105
Mageia8 x64 Gnome updated from previous version 96.0.4664.110 without issue. works with add-on (Adblock +...), tested with youtube and others sites without problem.
CC: (none) => hdetavernier
MGA8-64, Gnome Chromium installed - no issues
mga8-64 plasma, nvidia-current, swedish: works. But really much terminal output even starting without open tabs, i.e loads of chunks similar to this: *** stack smashing detected ***: terminated Received signal 6 #0 0x55f65d091e09 base::debug::CollectStackTrace() #1 0x55f65cfcff73 base::debug::StackTrace::StackTrace() #2 0x55f65d0918f1 base::debug::(anonymous namespace)::StackDumpSignalHandler() #3 0x7f181bc63180 (/usr/lib64/libpthread-2.32.so+0x1317f) #4 0x7f1818a23490 __GI_raise #5 0x7f1818a0e526 __GI_abort #6 0x7f1818a627a8 __libc_message #7 0x7f1818aed172 __GI___fortify_fail #8 0x7f1818aed150 __stack_chk_fail_local #9 0x55f65c8e3af5 content::RunZygote() #10 0x55f65c8e4862 *** stack smashing detected ***: terminated content::ContentMainRunnerImpl::Run() #11 0x55f65c8e1f3c content::RunContentProcess() #12 0x55f65c8e285c Received signal 6 #0 0x55f65d091e09 content::ContentMain() #13 0x55f657f1a9a8 base::debug::CollectStackTrace() #1 0x55f65cfcff73 base::debug::StackTrace::StackTrace() #2 0x55f65d0918f1 base::debug::(anonymous namespace)::StackDumpSignalHandler() #3 0x7f181bc63180 (/usr/lib64/libpthread-2.32.so+0x1317f) #4 0x7f1818a23490 __GI_raise #5 0x7f1818a0e526 __GI_abort #6 0x7f1818a627a8 __libc_message #7 0x7f1818aed172 __GI___fortify_fail #8 0x7f1818aed150 __stack_chk_fail_local #9 0x55f65c8e3af5 ChromeMain #14 0x7f1818a0fe1a __libc_start_main #15 0x55f657f1a7aa *** stack smashing detected ***: terminated content::RunZygote() #10 0x55f65c8e4862 Received signal 6 #0 0x55f65d091e09 *** stack smashing detected ***: terminated content::ContentMainRunnerImpl::Run() #11 0x55f65c8e1f3c _start r8: 0000000000000000 r9: 00007ffd408d1478 r10: 0000000000000008 r11: 0000000000000246 r12: 00007ffd408d16e0 r13: 0000000000001000 r14: 0000000000000020 r15: 00007f181bc85000 di: 0000000000000002 si: 00007ffd408d1478 bp: 00007ffd408d17e0 bx: 00007f1816210d40 dx: 0000000000000000 ax: 0000000000000000 cx: 00007f1818a23490 sp: 00007ffd408d14f0 ip: 00007f1818a23490 efl: 0000000000000246 cgf: 002b000000000033 erf: 0000000000000000 trp: 0000000000000000 msk: 0000000000000000 cr2: 0000000000000000 [end of stack trace] Real problems or too much debugging enabled?
Whiteboard: mga8-64-ok => MGA8-64-OKCC: (none) => fri
Tested on real i586 hardware i see similar output to comment #8 The bug#29680 looks solved for this release
Hi. I have made a few tests and browsed around. I confirm the behavior on comment #8 Chromium 98.0.4758.74 exhibits the same on MGA8, as well. On MGA9/Cauldron, there is no such trace, neither with 97.0.4692.99 nor with 98.0.4758.74 I don't see what could explain this in the .spec, coming from 96.0.4664.110. There are 2 differences between Cauldron and MGA8: system icu and system harfbuzz are used for Cauldron. This setup doesn't build for MGA8, and it was already the case for 96.0.4664.110. So, I don't think it is related. I found this: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1228625 The error message I get before Morgan's post reporting signal 6 is: [0131/191314.913858:ERROR:file_io_posix.cc(144)] open /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq: No such file or directory (2) and Chromium keeps running as nothing had happened. I found this: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1228625 mentioning the same error message but after a crash, apparently connected to GPU hardware acceleration. In all our cases, there is no crash. Except if someone has a different opinion, IMHO, as Chromium seems to run smoothly beside these messages if launched from a terminal, I would not block the release for that.
Hi I have been digging more. Actually, there is an interesting message just before the dump starts: "ERROR:gpu_init.cc(454)] Passthrough is not supported, GL is egl, ANGLE is" I have found related posts, pointing to glibc and chrome-sandbox. Here is one link: https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/all-chromium-based-apps-crashing-with-gpu-related-messages-after-recent-upgrade/16201 The difference is, in our case, Chromium doesn't crash. I played a bit with the launch options, but no real fix found. It looks like there are much fewer dumps during the first launch. I confirmed again it is very quiet with Cauldron. I have also packaged an ungoogled-chromium version, based on the exact same Chromium package. It looks a bit calmer, but there are some dumps as well on MGA8. I'll keep digging into, and any insights are welcome. For what it is worth, I have been using this version for about 2 weeks without any concern to raise.
Since it seems to be working despite the terminal feedback, I'm going to validate so that the security fixes can get out to our users.
Keywords: (none) => validated_updateCC: (none) => andrewsfarm, sysadmin-bugs
CC: (none) => davidwhodginsKeywords: (none) => advisory
An update for this issue has been pushed to the Mageia Updates repository. https://advisories.mageia.org/MGASA-2022-0043.html
Status: NEW => RESOLVEDResolution: (none) => FIXED