Conversation
Member
|
Isn't the offending binary in the Edit: oh, I see, |
Member
Author
|
|
newpavlov
force-pushed
the
pin_serde
branch
3 times, most recently
from
c3b2384 to
5713330
Compare
Member
Author
|
@dignifiedquire |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
serde v1.0.172and later include pre-compiled binaries which is a security hazard. So until the decision gets reverted, I believe it's worth to pin upper version ofserde. This approach may cause issues if a different crate in someone's dependency tree will depend on a post-1.0.172 version ofserde, but I think this issue is small enough when compared to the security concerns. Also, a number of other crates in the ecosystem follow this approach, so we are not alone.More information and discussion about the
serdechange can be found in serde-rs/serde#2538.