-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
feat(rust): Update cargo deny
check and deny.toml config
#344
Conversation
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ def main(): | |||
results.add( | |||
vendor_files_check.toml_diff_check("/stdcfgs/clippy.toml", "clippy.toml") | |||
) | |||
results.add(vendor_files_check.toml_diff_check("/stdcfgs/deny.toml", "deny.toml")) | |||
results.add(vendor_files_check.toml_diff_check("/stdcfgs/deny.toml", "deny.toml", strict=False)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, i want strict checking of cargo-deny config. Projects should not be able to modify it to suit themselves.
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ def main(): | |||
results.add(exec_manager.cli_run("cargo machete", name="Unused Dependencies Check")) | |||
# Check if we have any supply chain issues with dependencies. | |||
results.add( | |||
exec_manager.cli_run("cargo deny check --exclude-dev -W vulnerability", name="Supply Chain Issues Check") | |||
exec_manager.cli_run("cargo deny check --exclude-dev", name="Supply Chain Issues Check") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All the reasons for ignoreing the RUST-SEC vulnerabilites as errors remain,
A single change to the rustsec database can make our code broken and give us no viable way to resolve it.
I am not filling the cargo-deny config with tons of "We can't fix this vulnerability" exclusions. Its just wrong.
If rust let us actually have some meaningful way to fix vulnerabiliteis, that would be one thing, but its just a timebomb otherwise waiting to break CI outside of our control.
I would need to know a compelling reason why we must do this before I could approve it? |
@stevenj With such change it slightly reduces the headache to always modify in all our rust projects these fields if it is an issue only for one repository. So with this patch it will be possible just to add an exception for particular rust package. Also we are not actually loosing quality in general, because with this non-strict check other fields which are present in the golden config |
We don't use a lot of git projects, and they are already listed. And I already said I don't want us to continually have to add ignores to the RUST-SEC section, and with this cahnge across multiple repos. its pointless if we have no way of dealing with them properly. This change could require us to add ignores to multiple projects/repos because of a single RUST-SEC vulnerability that emerges. And we still have no way of properly correcting them, because rust doesn't allow us to force transitive dependencies to a fixed version.. |
@stevenj Got it. |
Description
RUSTSEC
vulnerability checkdeny.toml
configuration file check from strict to non-strict mode (means that the file could be different from the golden one, in places which are not specified by the golden config).advisories.ignore
andsource.allow-git
fields flexible and configurable on the rust project side itself and not strictly defined bycat-ci
goldendeny.toml
config file