Skip to content

zerovec vulnerability #1990

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jul 8, 2024
Merged

zerovec vulnerability #1990

merged 8 commits into from
Jul 8, 2024

Conversation

robertbastian
Copy link
Contributor

@robertbastian robertbastian commented Jul 2, 2024

@tarcieri
Copy link
Member

tarcieri commented Jul 2, 2024

Does it really need to be filed for both crates? If one pulls in the other, that’s sufficient.

@robertbastian
Copy link
Contributor Author

robertbastian commented Jul 2, 2024

It's possible (but unlikely) to be in a setup of [email protected] and [email protected]. This is a vulnerable combination.

Edit: zerovec only pulls in zerovec-derive with the derive feature, that could be off with a client manually importing zerovec-derive.

@Manishearth
Copy link
Contributor

@tarcieri the vulns are present in both crates independently: the derive macro doesn't enforce C, packed, and the manual impls in the zerovec crate also don't have C, packed.

@tarcieri tarcieri merged commit d79fdd6 into rustsec:main Jul 8, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants