cargo-auditable VS rfcs

Further we use cargo-auditable and cargo-audit as part of both our pipeline and regular scanning of all deployed services. This makes our InfoSec and Legal super happy since it means they can also monitor compliance with licenses and patch/update timings.

This exists, see cargo auditable.

The Rust community seems to have settled on a perfectly reasonable way to address bit-rot in statically linked binaries. https://github.com/rust-secure-code/cargo-auditable

Would you be open to integrating cargo auditable into this pipeline in some form? It seems like a great match.

> and static compilation probably just hides the problem unless security scanners these days can identify statically compiled vulnerable versions of libraries

Some scanners like trivy [1] can scan statically compiled binaries, provided they include dependency version information (I think go does this on its own, for rust there's [2], not sure about other languages).

It also looks into your containers.

The problem is what to do when it finds a vulnerability. In a fat app with dynamic linking you could exchange the offending library, check that this doesn't break anything for your use case, and be on your way. But with static linking you need to compile a new version, or get whoever can build it to compile a new version. Which seems to be a major drawback of discouraging fat apps.

1: https://github.com/aquasecurity/trivy

2: https://github.com/rust-secure-code/cargo-auditable

I have investigated a bunch of standardized formats - SPDX, CycloneDX, etc. All of them are unsuitable for a variety of reasons, chief of which are being way too verbose and including timestamps, which would break reproducible builds.

The fix for interoperability with cargo auditable has also shipped in the latest release of sccache. You can use the released sccache now instead of building it from git!

I've been working to bring vulnerability scanning to Rust binaries by creating cargo auditable, which embeds the list of dependencies and their versions into the compiled binary. This lets you audit the binary you actually run, instead of the Cargo.lock file in some repo somewhere.

cargo auditable solves this problem by embedding the list of dependencies and their versions into the binaries. But until it becomes part of Cargo and gets enabled by default, static linking will remain problematic.

RFC: Add large language models to Rust

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3603

Man, SO and family has really gone downhill. That top answer is absolutely terrible. In fact, if you care, you can literally look at the RFC discussion here to see the actual debate: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/582

Basically, `for x in y` is kind of redundant, already sorta-kinda supported by itertools, and there's also a ton of macros that sorta-kinda do it already. It would just be language bloat at this point.

Literally has nothing to do with memory management.

Congrats!

> Similarly, uv does not yet generate a platform-agnostic lockfile. This matches pip-tools, but differs from Poetry and PDM, making uv a better fit for projects built around the pip and pip-tools workflows.

Do you expect to make the higher level workflow independent of requirements.txt / support a platform-agnostic lockfile? Being attached to Rye makes me think "no".

Without being platform agnostic, to me this is dead-on-arrival and unable to meet the "Cargo for Python" aim.

> uv supports alternate resolution strategies. By default, uv follows the standard Python dependency resolution strategy of preferring the latest compatible version of each package. But by passing --resolution=lowest, library authors can test their packages against the lowest-compatible version of their dependencies. (This is similar to Go's Minimal version selection.)

> uv allows for resolutions against arbitrary target Python versions. While pip and pip-tools always resolve against the currently-installed Python version (generating, e.g., a Python 3.12-compatible resolution when running under Python 3.12), uv accepts a --python-version parameter, enabling you to generate, e.g., Python 3.7-compatible resolutions even when running under newer versions.

This is great to see though!

I can understand it being a flag on these lower level, directly invoked dependency resolution operations.

While you aren't onto the higher level operations yet, I think it'd be useful to see if there is any cross-ecosystem learning we can do for my MSRV RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3537

How are you handling pre-releases in you resolution? Unsure how much of that is specified in PEPs. Its something that Cargo is weak in today but we're slowly improving.

In the early days of Rust there was a debate about whether to support "green threads" and in doing that require runtime support. It was actually implemented and included for a time but it creates problems when trying to do library or embedded code. At the time Go for example chose to go that route, and it was both nice (goroutines are nice to write and well supported) and expensive (effectively requires GC etc). I don't remember the details but there is a Rust RFC from when they removed green threads:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/0806be4f282144cfcd55b...

I did some more digging. By RFC 899, I believe Alex Crichton meant PR 899 in this repo:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/899

Still, no real discussion of why unbuffered stderr.

Rust has had a stable SIMD vector API[1] for a long time. But, it's architecture specific. The portable API[2] isn't stable yet, but you probably can't use the portable API for some of the more exotic uses of SIMD anyway. Indeed, that's true in .NET's case too[3].

Rust does all this SIMD too. It just isn't in the standard library. But the regex crate does it. Indeed, this is where .NET got its SIMD approach for multiple substring search from in the first place[4]. ;-)

You're right that Rust's standard library is conservatively vectorized though[5]. The main thing blocking this isn't the lack of SIMD availability. It's more about how the standard library is internally structured, and the fact that things like substring search are not actually defined in `std` directly, but rather, in `core`. There are plans to fix this[6].

[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/arch/index.html

[2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/simd/index.html

[3]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/72fae0073b35a404f03c3...

[4]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/88394#issuecomment-16...

[5]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/memchr#why-is-the-standard-lib...

[6]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3469