once_self_cell
Safe-to-use proc-macro-free self-referential structs in stable Rust. (by Voultapher)
advisory-db
Security advisory database for Rust crates published through crates.io (by rustsec)
once_self_cell | advisory-db | |
---|---|---|
9 | 37 | |
226 | 862 | |
- | 2.3% | |
6.8 | 9.3 | |
3 days ago | 8 days ago | |
Rust | ||
Apache License 2.0 | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
The number of mentions indicates the total number of mentions that we've tracked plus the number of user suggested alternatives.
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
once_self_cell
Posts with mentions or reviews of once_self_cell.
We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives
and similar projects. The last one was on 2023-06-11.
-
Ouroboros is also unsound
This issue says "Migrate code to use self_cell instead." That page says "It has undergone community code review from experienced Rust users." Looking at the review, issues were found and fixed earlier on, but my interpretation of the end of the thread is more that folks stopped responding with concerns, so confidence is now assumed but still not proven. The same was true of most (all?) other crates trying to solve the same problem, until enough people did find the unsoundness holes unique to each crate.
-
Announcing self_cell version 1.0
I've come across the zip example bevor, and even considered adding support for mutable access to the owner here https://github.com/Voultapher/self_cell/pull/36. See the last comment why I decided not to pursue this. Looking at the specific example, really what is the purpose of storing the lazy ZipReader result? IMO that's bit of bad design on the part of the zip crate. The stdlib APIs consume reader, allowing you to abstract over creation logic. If what you need to store, needs further pre-processing, why not pull that out? Specifically here, what is the point of having a self-referential struct that contains an owner ZipArchive that you will no longer be allowed to mutate. And a lazy reader ZipReader that you can then use to really read the file? If you need to abstract over the construction logic you could return (ZipArchive, Box ZipReader>), if you want to return the content you can return (ZipArchive, Vec) allowing further use of ZipArchive.
-
Unsoundness in owning_ref
As the author of self_cell I can attest, that writing unsafe lifetime abstractions is exceedingly tricky and you will get it wrong, repeatedly. I'm not sure these problems in owning_ref can be solved without a serious overhaul of the API. For one it tracks too little information, both ouroboros and self_cell independently reached the conclusion that you have to mark the dependent as either covariant or not_covariant over the owner lifetime, and prohibit ever leaking direct references if the dependent is not_covariant. But the fun doesn't stop there, if the owner can have a lifetime too, things get extra tricky. If you want to dive deeper take a look at this discussion https://github.com/Voultapher/self_cell/pull/29.
-
My experience crafting an interpreter with Rust
Grouping the source and derived AST in the same struct without leaking the lifetime is something that greatly helped keep the API sane. Shameless plug https://github.com/Voultapher/self_cell
-
Safe-to-use proc-macro-free self-referential structs in stable Rust.
Thanks, I'll incorporate that into https://github.com/Voultapher/once_self_cell/issues/5
advisory-db
Posts with mentions or reviews of advisory-db.
We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives
and similar projects. The last one was on 2024-03-26.
- Serde-YAML for Rust has been archived
- When Zig is safer and faster than Rust
-
Advisory: Miscompilation in cortex-m-rt 0.7.1 and 0.7.2
You might also want to add this to https://github.com/rustsec/advisory-db so that cargo audit and Dependabot surface it.
-
"This type of secure-by-default functionality is why we love Go"
The behavior of not extracting outside the specified directory has been the default since forever in Rust's tar. And then it had two RUSTSEC advisories for not handling this correctly in certain corner cases. The latest one in 2021.
-
greater supply chain attack risk due to large dependency trees?
cargo-audit only checks for known issues reported to a vulnerability database.
- capnproto-rust: out-of-bound memory access bug
-
`cargo audit` can now scan compiled binaries
However, I keep getting this error when running cargo audit bin ~/.cargo/bin/*, even if I replace * with a specific binary: Fetching advisory database from `https://github.com/RustSec/advisory-db.git` Loaded 467 security advisories (from C:\Users\jonah\.cargo\advisory-db) Updating crates.io index error: I/O operation failed: The system cannot find the path specified. (os error 3) I'm on Windows 10.
-
MIA Github Assignee on very minor PR
I usually open an issue asking if the crate is still maintained. If there isn't a response for a decent amount of time (like multiple months) and the crate is somewhat popular then it could be worth opening an unmaintained advisory in the advisory-db
-
RustSec Advisory Database Visualization
Here is the visualization of RustSec Advisory Database. I hope it will be helpful. If you need any more charts, feel free to comment.
-
Github Dependency graph adds vulnerability alerting support for Rust
FWIW the RustSec database is still not synced into the Github databse on a regular basis, even though they did an initial import of it. So the cargo audit github action is still relevant.