Cryptographically verifiable, distributed dependency reviews
Add the last reviewed version to Cargo.toml / [dependencies]:
libc = "0.2.127"Please, use mobile in landscape.
Filter reviews clicking on the numbers in the summary.
Full column names in tooltip hints: rating Negative, rating Neutral, rating Positive, rating Strong, thoroughness, understanding, reviews count.
Compared to 0.2.125, this is just usual churn. I found a place where a struct
field is used in PartialEq but not Hash; I asked the author to check if
that's correct: https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/pull/2748/files#r880853330
Other than that, this looks solid.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
Compared to 0.2.124, this release adds more constants, structs, and function
prototypes, plus some support for LoongArch (MIPS-like CPUs from a Chinese
company Loongson).
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
Compared to 0.2.123, this release adds more constants, structs, and function
prototypes. The only interesting bit is si_addr and si_value methods forsiginfo_t on uclibc Linux: they use type punning to interpret siginfo_t
payload differently. They look fine to me.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
Compared to 0.2.122, this release only adds a couple constants and function
signatures.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The major change in this release is partial support for __int128 (and similar
types) for aarch64 platforms. As usual with libc, the actual code is
dead-simple; the actual work--verifying that rustc's representation matches
platform's--was done elsewhere. Looks okay to me.
And then there's the usual churn of function declarations and new constants.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
Compared to 0.2.119, this mostly contains the usual churn: more function
prototypes, some changes to attributes, typo fixes. The only interesting bit
is updates to siginfo_t on Solarish, where Unix signal payload is now
handled more intelligently. It's admittedly unfinished, but looks okay to me.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
Compared to 0.2.118, this version only adds a few lgrp_* functions for
Solaris-like systems, and a constant on Apple AArch64.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
Most of the additions compared to 0.2.117 are related to System V contexts
support. There are also a bunch of new constants, a few new functions, and
a couple typo fixes. Nothing stands out to me in this release.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
Compared to 0.2.116, this version removes the "How to apply the Apache
license to your work" appendix from the LICENSE file, and adds a bunch of
constants for Android and musl. Nothing hairy.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
Compared to 0.2.115, this version is mostly about ARMv6K Nintendo 3DS
support, but it also adds a number of new constants and a couple functions.
Nothing scary.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
Compared to 0.2.114, this version adds one new constant, a couple new types,
and a few new structs. Looks legit.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.113 only shows the usual churn: some constants got moved,
some functions got added, and one macro got fixed.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.111 reveals nothing malicious, just the usual churn.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.111 reveals nothing malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.110 is minuscule: just some BSD functions moved around, and
a new linker dependency added for FreeBSD.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.109 contains all the usual stuff: some new FreeBSD work,
some deprecation removals, plus a bit of new misc stuff. Nothing malicious
as far as I can tell.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.108 shows nothing malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.108 shows nothing malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.107 is large but boring. I didn't find anything malicious.
I did find a couple insignificant errors:
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.107 is large but boring. I didn't find anything malicious.
I did find a couple insignificant errors:
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.107 doesn't contain anything unusual or malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.107 doesn't contain anything unusual or malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.106 reveals nothing unusual or malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.106 reveals nothing unusual or malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.104 only contains the usual churn, nothing malicious. Some
new entries have doc comments, that's unusual for this crate :)
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.104 only contains the usual churn, nothing malicious. Some
new entries have doc comments, that's unusual for this crate :)
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
Half of the diff since 0.2.103 is bindings for the new rustc target, SOLID.
The other half is the usual: more constants, some more bindings.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
Half of the diff since 0.2.103 is bindings for the new rustc target, SOLID.
The other half is the usual: more constants, some more bindings.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
The diff from 0.2.102 doesn't reveal anything malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.102 doesn't reveal anything malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: Amanieu (Libc crate team)
The diff from 0.2.101 doesn't show anything malicious.
Funny typo: "errnoeously". Not worth reporting and fixing upstream, I think.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.101 doesn't show anything malicious.
Funny typo: "errnoeously". Not worth reporting and fixing upstream, I think.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
The diff from 0.2.100 doesn't show anything malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.100 doesn't show anything malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: Amanieu (Libc crate team)
The diff from 0.2.99 doesn't show anything malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.99 doesn't show anything malicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
The diff from 0.2.98 doesn't reveal anything malicious. I found a couple
typos though, and submitted a PR to fix them:
https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/pull/2330
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.98 doesn't reveal anything malicious. I found a couple
typos though, and submitted a PR to fix them:
https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/pull/2330
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
The diff from 0.2.97 doesn't reveal anything suspicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
The diff from 0.2.97 doesn't reveal anything suspicious.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
Compared to 0.2.95, there are two new functions (mallinfo2 and mstats) along
with their respective structs, and one new constant (AF_VSOCK).
Nothing fancy. As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because
I didn't manually check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that
the CI checked that already.
Compared to 0.2.95, there are two new functions (mallinfo2 and mstats) along
with their respective structs, and one new constant (AF_VSOCK).
Nothing fancy. As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because
I didn't manually check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that
the CI checked that already.
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
Delta from 0.2.95 doesn't show anything malicious, just the usual stuff: more
bindings, more constants, more types.
This looks fine. As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because
I didn't manually check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that
the CI checked that already.
Delta from 0.2.95 doesn't show anything malicious, just the usual stuff: more
bindings, more constants, more types.
This looks fine. As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because
I didn't manually check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that
the CI checked that already.
Delta from 0.2.94 reveals nothing unusual: add new bindings, add new
constants, move some code around, and undo a macOS-related hack that
I committed earlier. Some FIXMEs were added too, but their comments don't
sound urgent.
This looks fine. "Thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't
manually check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI
checked that already.
Delta from 0.2.94 reveals nothing unusual: add new bindings, add new
constants, move some code around, and undo a macOS-related hack that
I committed earlier. Some FIXMEs were added too, but their comments don't
sound urgent.
This looks fine. "Thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't
manually check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI
checked that already.
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
Delta from 0.2.93 moves some TCP-related constants around, adds
RLIMIT_NLIMITS constant, and provides a few new function bindings.
This looks fine. "Thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't
manually check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI
checked that already.
Delta from 0.2.93 moves some TCP-related constants around, adds
RLIMIT_NLIMITS constant, and provides a few new function bindings.
This looks fine. "Thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't
manually check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI
checked that already.
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
Delta from 0.2.92 consists mostly of two things: formatting changes, and
modularisation of some architecture-specific constants for Linux.
Packing was disabled for arphdr and in_addr on NetBSD. The commit message
sounds convincing to me
(https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/commit/ec13c82bc93070dfe1d81a359174e0495edfe487).
There's also a hint at a new CI machinery that'll ensure the crate doesn't
break semver.
Overall this looks fine to me. As usual, I rely on the project's CI to check
that the bindings match C, hence "thoroughness" is low.
Delta from 0.2.92 consists mostly of two things: formatting changes, and
modularisation of some architecture-specific constants for Linux.
Packing was disabled for arphdr and in_addr on NetBSD. The commit message
sounds convincing to me
(https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/commit/ec13c82bc93070dfe1d81a359174e0495edfe487).
There's also a hint at a new CI machinery that'll ensure the crate doesn't
break semver.
Overall this looks fine to me. As usual, I rely on the project's CI to check
that the bindings match C, hence "thoroughness" is low.
Delta from 0.2.91 mostly moves code around by adding const annotations. It
also introduces one new bindings (pwrite64). Nothing suspicious. As usual,
I rely on the project's CI to check that the bindings match C, hence
"thoroughness" is low.
Delta from 0.2.91 mostly moves code around by adding const annotations. It
also introduces one new bindings (pwrite64). Nothing suspicious. As usual,
I rely on the project's CI to check that the bindings match C, hence
"thoroughness" is low.
Delta from 0.2.90 only adds a single constant to a couple modules and edits
some docs. Looks okay to me. (As usual, I rely on the project's CI to check
if the constant is correct, hence "thoroughness" is low).
Delta from 0.2.90 only adds a single constant to a couple modules and edits
some docs. Looks okay to me. (As usual, I rely on the project's CI to check
if the constant is correct, hence "thoroughness" is low).
I checked that the delta from 0.2.89 doesn't add any suspicious code. It
indeed doesn't. I trust that ctest in the project's CI checked that all new
constants have the expected values, and that function signatures match C.
I checked that the delta from 0.2.89 doesn't add any suspicious code. It
indeed doesn't. I trust that ctest in the project's CI checked that all new
constants have the expected values, and that function signatures match C.
This crate contains unsafe bindings to platform-specific C functions. The
project has an expansive CI pipeline that runs ctest on Linux, macOS,
FreeBSD, and Windows. Where possible, the testing is done on multiple
architectures with different libc implementations.
Most of the crate is marked unsafe, but that's just the nature of the beast.
I only looked at one module, unix, so thoroughness is capped at "low".
However, the crate comes from the same people who build Rust itself, so this
doesn't affect the rating.
Given it's just a list of declarations, which are then automatically checked,
I'm fairly confident that this code does what it's supposed to do.
This crate contains unsafe bindings to platform-specific C functions. The
project has an expansive CI pipeline that runs ctest on Linux, macOS,
FreeBSD, and Windows. Where possible, the testing is done on multiple
architectures with different libc implementations.
Most of the crate is marked unsafe, but that's just the nature of the beast.
I only looked at one module, unix, so thoroughness is capped at "low".
However, the crate comes from the same people who build Rust itself, so this
doesn't affect the rating.
Given it's just a list of declarations, which are then automatically checked,
I'm fairly confident that this code does what it's supposed to do.
Used by almost everyone
Used by almost everyone
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: Amanieu (Libc crate team)
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: joshtriplett (Libc crate team)
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
BASIC LIBRARY
libc is the absolute basic core crate for the rust language.
I trust it just like I trust the Rust standard library or the rust compiler.
I didn't review the source code.
Published to crates.io by: JohnTitor (Libc crate team)
© bestia.dev 2021, MIT Licence, Version: 2021.1208.1729
Open source repository for this web app: https://github.com/bestia-dev/cargo_crev_web/
Compared to 0.2.126, this release is just bookkeeping. A bunch of new
constants and functions were added, some fixes were applied to existing ones,
and some code was reformatted.
The problem with struct field missing from the
Hashimpl that I mentionedin my previous review has been fixed, too.
As usual, "thoroughness" for this review is "low" because I didn't manually
check that the bindings match the headers — I trust that the CI checked that
already.