0.1.5 (current) Thoroughness: Medium Understanding: Low
by niklasf on 2021-01-01
These reviews are from Crev, a distributed system for code reviews. To add your review, set up cargo-crev
.
0.1.5 (current) Thoroughness: Medium Understanding: Low
by niklasf on 2021-01-01
The current version of shell-escape is 0.1.5.
0.1.4 (older version) Thoroughness: Low Understanding: Medium
Approved without comment by dpc on 2019-10-04
These reviews are from cargo-vet. To add your review, set up cargo-vet
and submit your URL to its registry.
0.1.5 (current)
From kornelski/crev-proofs copy of git.savannah.gnu.org.
Packaged for Guix (crates-io)
0.1.5 (current)
From kornelski/crev-proofs copy of salsa.debian.org.
Only in debcargo (unstable). Changelog:
cargo-vet does not verify reviewers' identity. You have to fully trust the source the audits are from.
May have been packaged automatically without a review
Lib.rs has been able to verify that all files in the crate's tarball are in the crate's repository with a git tag matching the version. Please note that this check is still in beta, and absence of this confirmation does not mean that the files don't match.
Crates in the crates.io registry are tarball snapshots uploaded by crates' publishers. The registry is not using crates' git repositories, so there is a possibility that published crates have a misleading repository URL, or contain different code from the code in the repository.
To review the actual code of the crate, it's best to use cargo crev open shell-escape
. Alternatively, you can download the tarball of shell-escape v0.1.5 or view the source online.
This small crate implements Windows-style and Unix-style shell escaping. Its not clear which exactly are the supported shells, so its hard to guarantee the escaping is safe for all possible ones (although it looks fine for all common shells).
A second worry is the runtime detection of the current shell, where an environment variabe (MSYSTEM) can be used to change the escaping style to Unix. For users of the crate, if the environment is known, I would recommend explicitly specifying it, instead of relying on the detection.
The exposed functions have the signature Cow -> Cow. It would seem that &str -> Cow is more natural.
I do not know if character encodings play a role, here, and if str is the correct type to be working with.