cryptography VS compiler-team

Congratulations to the authors, this was a feature that was dearly missing from pyca/cryptography. It took a long time to get right.

For the history: https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/2381

Some context:

- The cryptography dependency used by the current release of mitmproxy has a CVE related to an OpenSSL vulnerability (https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/security/advisories/GHS...)

- The main branch of mitmproxy has already upgraded to the latest version of the cryptography package

- The author of the package does not believe the CVE impacts users of mitmproxy so a release including this commit has not been made

Also you'll use https://github.com/pyca/cryptography

first, I did see a correlation between an endpoint being heavily hit in a given time window, and an increase of memory usage that didn't went down afterwards. The endpoint didn't do much so I went through every instruction - is a global variable appended indefinitely ? Is a cache decorator growing without a limit set ? Do I use a 3rd party that has a known issue ? Turns out, it was using cryptography, so I looked up known issues. Saw an issue about a leak when using load_pem_x509_certificate https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/4833 - which I used ! I could fortunately just upgrade the library

Après le kerfuffle du paquet de cryptographie cette semaine (https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/5771), J’ai passé en revue l’état des outils de gestion des dépendances en Python.

> A big problem with Rust, long-term, is that the kind of programs that really need it are somewhat out of today's mainstream. It's not that useful for webcrap. It's not that useful for phone apps. The AI people use Jupyter notebooks and Python to drive code on GPUs.

One thing this is missing is that Rust is useful for libraries callable by many different languages. You may or may not want to use it to build an actual Web app (I personally think it's a solid choice, but reasonable people can disagree). But for building, say, the Python cryptography library [1], which is used as a part of "webcrap" and Jupyter notebooks, Rust is clearly an excellent option. Nobody is going to build core Python infrastructure in Go or Node, and there will always be a need for plumbing libraries.

[1]: https://github.com/pyca/cryptography

Also, I see more and more examples where rust gets included in different technologies using FFI. Ie for python https://github.com/pyca/cryptography for security/performance critical pieces.

> I am curious. Could you give some more context?

Probably talking about this: https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/5771

You will be hard pressed to find a cryptography library that doesn't depend on openssl. Fortunately openssl bindings can be installed on Windows. One of the more popular libraries for python is cryptography, but it does depend on libssl.

> Also, why aren't we size-sorting fields already?

We are for struct/enum fields. https://camlorn.net/posts/April%202017/rust-struct-field-reo...

There's even an unstable flag to help catch incorrect assumptions about struct layout. https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/457

Are you talking about https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/688 ? I think that issue provides a lot of interesting context for this specific improvement.

And mips64, which rustc recently dumped support for after their attempt to extort funding/resources from Loongson failed:

https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/648

This is the biggest problem with the LLVM mentality: they use architecture support as a means to extract support (i.e. salaried dev positions) from hardware companies.

GNU may have annoyingly-higher standards for merging changes, but once it's in there and supported they will keep it for the long haul.

See https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/688

The work has been going on for some time now and it seems we are quite close to it being enabled as a default for nightly builds, I am super thrilled upwards of 20% faster clean builds and possibly more are on the horizon. Hope everything works out without triggering some unseen ICE. https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/681 Edit: If you want to discuss this feature reach out on Zulip

I'd recommend reading the MCP[1] they linked regarding the decision as well as their target tier policy [2].

They are dropping tier 1 support for Win 7 and Win 8. That means they are no longer going to guarantee that the project builds on those platforms and passes all tests via CI.

As long as it is feasible they will probably keep CI runs for those platforms and if interested parties step up and provide sufficient maintenance support, it will remain tier 2. i.e a guarantee that it builds on those platforms via CI but not necessarily that all features are supported and guaranteed via passing tests.

If interested parties can provide sufficient maintenance that all tests continue passing, it will be tier 1 in all but name. However the rest of the development community won't waste their time with issues like Win 7 and 8's partial support for UTF-8.

And once CI stops being feasible for the compiler team to host, it'll drop down to tier 3. If there's sufficient interest from the community towards maintaining these targets, in practice you should see comparable support to with tiers 1 or 2 however now any CI will be managed externally by the community and the compiler team will stop worrying about changes that could break compilation on those targets.

TLDR: They aren't saying "it'll no longer work" but rather "if you want it to stay maintained for these targets, you have to pitch in dev hours to maintain it and eventually support the infrastructure to do this because we don't see a reason to continue doing this". So if you care for these targets, you'll have to contribute to keep it maintained.

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/651

(The already broken) XP support was removed almost 3 years ago: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/378