uGwLNFZ_p6EV3AXkJYjJle9N4joGx7LkwEMkdONuNWlolx0UWuz9GVM9IqQrBbmdMorpDYkYSPW1wDxJJBuaAA
----- END CREV PROOF -----
+----- BEGIN CREV PROOF -----
+kind: package review
+version: -1
+date: "2022-01-11T20:07:22.213361263+11:00"
+from:
+ id-type: crev
+ id: QE5OVlHZ4QyOcMqdjXhS1MgsoZHvUqxOHNZwyfpsDIU
+ url: "https://git.chrismorgan.info/crev-proofs"
+package:
+ source: "https://crates.io"
+ name: sanitize-filename
+ version: 0.3.0
+ revision: ece3260eb1f7b959125e5ca8f25781b31e875934
+ digest: WpQbem5BHnp6FnMIwNny-oY5xqc_7W0x4anVu2N-gnw
+review:
+ thoroughness: high
+ understanding: high
+ rating: neutral
+alternatives:
+ - source: "https://crates.io"
+ name: sanitise-file-name
+comment: |-
+ This crate is straightforward and simple in a fairly good way, but it’s not
+ as efficient as it could be, has a couple of small but significant bugs,
+ has some defaults and behaviours that I reckon aren’t ideal.
+
+ The good:
+
+ • The code is simple. The actual sanitisation code is 27 lines
+ (not including the regular expression definitions).
+
+ • If nothing needs to be changed about the name (which is probably the most
+ common case), exactly one precisely-sized allocation is made. (This is
+ definitely a positive side-effect of using Regex::replace_all rather than
+ the obvious standard library alternative, str::replace, which would have
+ led to a minimum of three or five allocations.)
+
+ The not-so-good (that is, things that aren’t ideal but aren’t real problems):
+
+ • Unnecessary dependencies: regex and lazy_static are used, but I reckon
+ they’re not warranted. A character iterator and some push(char) or
+ push_str(replacement), plus some trim_end_matches() at the end in lieu of
+ WINDOWS_TRAILING_RE, would do the same job probably faster—though I will
+ admit that such a naive implementation would be prone to allocate slightly
+ more than this does when no replacements are made (though starting with
+ `String::with_capacity(name.len())` would nigh completely counter this),
+ and a smarter implementation that deferred allocation would be a bit longer
+ and not quite so “obviously correct”.
+
+ Mitigating this claim of unnecessary dependencies and heaviness, regex’s
+ default features have been turned off, which is good.
+
+ • It strips more than is necessary: U+0080–U+009F are not reserved by any
+ file system or operating system I know of, but this crate is stripping
+ them; and the names COM0 and LPT0 are not reserved by Windows, but this
+ crate is stripping them.
+
+ • Poor style on Regex and RegexBuilder: ILLEGAL_RE includes colon twice;
+ and WINDOWS_RESERVED_RE sets case insensitivity in two ways, `(?i)` and
+ `RegexBuilder::case_insensitive(true)` (so it could have just used
+ `Regex::new`).
+
+ • It unnecessarily enables the unicode-case feature (which is heavy) on regex:
+ In its favour it did disable the default features, but unicode-case isn’t
+ needed, because WINDOWS_RESERVED_RE only matches ASCII. It would be better
+ to change (?i) to (?i-u) and disable the feature again.
+
+ • The defaults depend on your platform: the default value for
+ Options::windows is true on Windows and false elsewhere; varying things
+ like this is risky, and I think a poor choice in this particular case,
+ because you could be writing to a device subject to Windows’ limitations
+ (e.g. a local NTFS partition, a FAT32 or exFAT USB disk, a SMB network
+ share), and the difference in what Windows requires is so slight (assuming
+ the excessive stripping mentioned in the next point).
+
+ • With Options::windows false, it strips much more than is necessary:
+ ILLEGAL_RE is still applied, and it corresponds to a mix of NTFS/FAT32 and
+ Windows limitations; other platforms pretty much only need to worry about ␀
+ (0x00) and / (0x2F).
+
+ • Truncation operates on the entire name, not the base name: this is a
+ flaw found in almost all libraries like this; although it’s not
+ intrinsically a security vulnerability, it contributes to the critical
+ security vulnerability where you thought you checked the extension of a
+ file was OK, but then you sanitised it and thte extension changed. But
+ quite apart from the security aspect, file extensions changing unexpectedly
+ is a usability hazard.
+
+ • Documentation-wise, it’s kind of a black box: the README is fair, but
+ doesn’t explain in detail any of what’s done, and there are no doc comments
+ on anything. When it turns "aux.h" into "", you’ll say, “wait, *what*!?” if
+ you don’t know the deal.
+
+ The bad (that is, it’ll cause actual problems):
+
+ • It misses a character that Microsoft says isn’t allowed: U+007F is supposed
+ to be stripped, but isn’t.
+
+ • WINDOWS_TRAILING_RE is wrong: it should be stripping trailing spaces and
+ dots (`[. ]+$`), but is instead a duplicate of RESERVED_RE (`^\.+$`) and so
+ does nothing.
+
+ My opinions:
+
+ • Options::truncate shouldn’t be a bool with the number 255 hard-coded,
+ because it’s common to want to append an extension afterwards (especially
+ if you know about the truncation hazard!).
+
+ • I think "" is a mildly poor default for Options::replacement; I think "_"
+ would be a better choice, so that “1 < 0? A treatise”
+ becomes “1 _ 0_ A treatise” rather than “1 0 A treatise”.
+
+ • The treatment of reserved names is poor: they’re entirely replaced with the
+ replacement string, so by default "aux.h" will become "" (eh, I suppose
+ that’s not too awful), and with an underscore "aux.h" will become "_" (uh
+ oh, it lost its extension). I think a better choice is to alter the base
+ name; I’ve seen a double underscore prefix and an underscore prefix, and I
+ chose an underscore suffix in my crate.
+
+ • There should also be an option to remove leading dots, which hide files on
+ most platforms, and are fairly problematic under Windows.
+
+ • “Sanitise” looks so much better than “sanitize”. 😛
+
+ My recommendation: use my sanitise-file-name crate instead of this.
+ My crate’s code is certainly longer-winded because of its performance focus,
+ but it’s more thorough in its processing, with better filtering and better
+ defaults, quite apart from the (unbenchmarked) performance thing.
+
+ sanitise-file-name doesn’t cover *precisely* the same functionality as this
+ crate, but the differences are generally minor and fairly clearly described.
+ Here are the option translations:
+
+ sanitize_filename::Options.truncate == true (the default)
+ sanitise_file_name::Options.length_limit == 255 (the default)
+
+ sanitize_filename::Options.truncate == false
+ sanitise_file_name::Options.length_limit == usize::MAX
+
+ sanitize_filename::Options.windows (default cfg!(windows))
+ sanitise_file_name::Options.windows_safe (default true)
+
+ sanitize_filename::Options.replacement == "" (the default)
+ sanitise_file_name::Options.replace_with == None (NOT the default)
+
+ sanitize_filename::Options.replacement == "_" (any one character)
+ sanitise_file_name::Options.replace_with == Some('_') (the default)
+
+ sanitize_filename::Options.replacement == "string" (longer than one character)
+ (not supported in sanitise-file-name)
+
+ I haven’t factored the sanitize-filename binary into my reckoning here.
+ Some may find it useful, but I don’t think it will often be useful as a
+ standalone binary. And the binary’s usage string is found in the README, but
+ is not emitted by the binary itself, which is odd. Kinda fits in with not
+ documenting anything inside the code files!
+----- SIGN CREV PROOF -----
+16uMNqMzp_nrGOi5JyJro5meslEjUV7coVZ5qxyobQ6So-H8DrkbjBSOntYC-1fP2VthjzzdfvvB__i6KakhCw
+----- END CREV PROOF -----
+
+----- BEGIN CREV PROOF -----
+kind: package review
+version: -1
+date: "2022-01-12T05:37:47.367354687+11:00"
+from:
+ id-type: crev
+ id: QE5OVlHZ4QyOcMqdjXhS1MgsoZHvUqxOHNZwyfpsDIU
+ url: "https://git.chrismorgan.info/crev-proofs"
+package:
+ source: "https://crates.io"
+ name: sanitize-filename-reader-friendly
+ version: 2.2.1
+ revision: 245eca36c588cb70f907e2167ecee93b0fd54d33
+ digest: f6Pot3fE2Kp4y5hrg6gx34D4YFt6oJGexGqMNwT2yko
+review:
+ thoroughness: high
+ understanding: high
+ rating: negative
+alternatives:
+ - source: "https://crates.io"
+ name: sanitise-file-name
+comment: |-
+ This crate does approximately what it’s supposed to, but it’s overengineered
+ in a bad way (complicated for no good reason), confusingly and insufficiently
+ documented, contains some perplexing functionality that I can’t think of any
+ good reason for the existence of, is not as efficient as it could be, and
+ misses a couple of fairly significant things in a file name sanitiser that
+ mean that what it returns might still not work.
+
+ I recommend my own crate sanitise-file-name instead, which is unfortunately
+ at least as complex, but for the good reasons of runtime efficiency and it
+ actually caring about extensions and correctness, and far better documented
+ and explained.
+
+ The good:
+
+ • It does what it says on the tin. The sanitisation it performs *is* fairly
+ reader-friendly (though its rules are more convoluted than I think is
+ warranted).
+
+ The not-so-good:
+
+ • There’s no name length limitation: this is actually a little subjective,
+ because implemented and used carelessly it leads to file extension change
+ attacks (which in the right environment could allow remote code execution),
+ but it’s generally expected.
+
+ • It strips or replaces some characters it probably shouldn’t:
+
+ • For example, U+200B is branded a non-printing character and removed. For
+ starters, there’s no such concept in Unicode; the closest is control
+ characters, and U+200B ZERO-WIDTH SPACE isn’t one of those. Removing it
+ serves no security purpose (unlike most of the Bidi_Control characters),
+ and will mangle some Unicode text where ZWSP is significant. You could
+ argue over it being a fingerprinting vector, but in that case why aren’t
+ ZWNJ and ZWJ filtered out, and after that how about confusables, &c.
+ So I say there’s just no good reason to remove U+200B.
+
+ • It replaces various characters that no file system objects to, such as ~
+ (replaced with _) and #, %, {, }, ^ and ` (replaced with space).
+ Most of those can be genuinely useful characters in file names.
+
+ • Some of the rules are fairly arbitrary, and some excessive: the decisions
+ about what gets turned into a space, what gets turned into an underscore,
+ and what gets removed are idiosyncratic with no explanation, and a couple
+ of them seem a little odd. Not harmful in any way, just… why those
+ particular rules? FILTER_ORIG_AFTER_LAST_PROCESSED_WAS_WHITESPACE is
+ perhaps the most bizarre and troubling: drop a few characters, including
+ `.`, the extension separator, if they come after a space. Remember my
+ earlier point about length limitation potentially opening a security
+ vulnerability? Well, this is a similar sort of issue, though unlikely to be
+ exploitable, that you can change the extension significantly:
+ `foo.exe .jpg` becomes `foo.exe jpg`.
+
+ I think it’s telling, philosophically, that the library completely ignores
+ extensions. It’s not worrying about security. (In the tests, only two or
+ three test cases have extensions, and those are ones copied from elsewhere.)
+
+ The bad:
+
+ • It’s inefficient: an absolute minimum of five allocations, and in practice
+ it’ll tend to be a few more. (It wouldn’t be *terribly* difficult to make
+ it perform exactly one allocation in all cases, like I did. A couple of the
+ allocations are almost trivially removable.) Also it uses str.find(char) to
+ check if characters can be removed, on strings as long as 10 chars/30 code
+ units, which is much less efficient than a match block and probably less
+ efficient even than using [char], while also writing boolean conditions in
+ a way that doesn’t take advantage of short-circuiting
+ (`STRING.find(c_orig).is_some() && last_processed_chr == '&'`, which would
+ be better flipped to do the cheap char comparison first).
+
+ • It’s confusing with some surprising scope: it’s not sanitising simple
+ names, but rather some kind of thing where you can put parts on multiple
+ lines and it’ll sanitise them individually and join them up and I can’t
+ think of any serious reason why you’d actually want this—the potential
+ benefits are negligible, and it makes it much more confusing.
+
+ • Its code style is inconsistent: useful comments occasionally, superfluous
+ comments sometimes but not other times, erroneous comments sometimes, a doc
+ comment with a spurious asterisk in the middle.
+
+ • It overuses constants and its documentation is poorly prepared: it’s
+ written in an idiosyncratic private const-heavy style that makes reading
+ the code hard and doesn’t translate to rustdoc at all, so you have to read
+ the code to understand what’s actually going on, and the code’s overly
+ complicated, so it takes quite some time to figure out what’s going on,
+ constantly having to jump between the code and the consts as well.
+ Actually, it looks like the author *tried* to make it rustdoc-friendly by
+ pulling in const_format::concatcp! (clever compile-time magic) and exposing
+ a couple of public consts, but quite apart from them being incomplete (as
+ documented), it doesn’t even work because rustdoc doesn’t include the
+ values of the consts in its output. (In theory perhaps the constants could
+ be used by dependers as well, but I can’t imagine any genuine use case.)
+
+ • It doesn’t do all it needs to: Windows reserved names are a TODO in the
+ code. I contributed the essence of a patch, but no action has been taken
+ after some weeks. (Actually, I started patching it further to make it more
+ efficient, then decided I just wanted to start from scratch, and so I made
+ sanitise-file-name.)
+
+ • I have a problem with its entire philosphical approach, given the domain:
+ as noted in the previous section, length limitations, not even
+ acknowledging extensions are a thing and doing dangerous things in
+ consequence, it’s just not the right approach for sanitising file names, an
+ area where you should be caring about security. Ultimately, this is why I’m
+ giving a rating of negative rather than neutral as I originally intended.
+
+ My recommendation: avoid this crate. It’s not awful by any means, but it’s
+ not well-written either, and my crate sanitise-file-name provides much the
+ same functionality, but better. Its default options are quite similar to this
+ crate’s, but more thorough. It doesn’t offer the strangne multi-line thing
+ this crate does.
+----- SIGN CREV PROOF -----
+C30SLGF6ibx4QaLXo6uazHuIio1iP_rSmab7Vo6nLEeFZfuoaFTqiaMhPYflhvcGHEu6jImRBBIvmworq13bBg
+----- END CREV PROOF -----
+
+----- BEGIN CREV PROOF -----
+kind: package review
+version: -1
+date: "2022-01-13T00:42:12.174512813+11:00"
+from:
+ id-type: crev
+ id: QE5OVlHZ4QyOcMqdjXhS1MgsoZHvUqxOHNZwyfpsDIU
+ url: "https://git.chrismorgan.info/crev-proofs"
+package:
+ source: "https://crates.io"
+ name: cfg-if
+ version: 1.0.0
+ revision: e60fa1efeab0ec6e90c50d93ec526e1410459c23
+ digest: YmRVto2mw7U7GJhrOe13k_5Sgg9TcQWK1NuLN2Qiz5E
+review:
+ thoroughness: high
+ understanding: high
+ rating: positive
+comment: |-
+ This is a robust crate, clear, simple and well-documented within and without,
+ powered by a well-designed tt gobbler, and written by Alex Crichton of
+ exemplar reputation.
+
+ I’m quite fond of the ``$(if … { … })else* else { … }`` trick, using the
+ keyword ``else`` as the repetition delimiter. I knew you could put a variety
+ of things there, not just characters like comma or semicolon, but I hadn’t
+ connected the dots that that would extended to keywords. Hey, you can even
+ use *string literals*! Crazy stuff. Anyway, that’s a neat way of keeping the
+ public API to two rules rather than three as I would probably have done.
+
+ I found one surprise in this: ``cfg_if! { else { true } }`` works, yielding
+ true, because that repetition I just showed used ``*`` instead of ``+``.
+ It’s not covered by the test suite, but it’s harmless.
+ <https://github.com/alexcrichton/cfg-if/issues/23> confirms it’s unintended.
+
+ Since the 1.0.0 release, there have been [a few commits
+ <https://github.com/alexcrichton/cfg-if/commits/main>]. Most are minor
+ trivialities (yeah, I’ll even call Dependabot that, though I hate it and it’s
+ not even useful here because this crate has no dependencies), but
+ <https://github.com/alexcrichton/cfg-if/commit/349913689695130c2c63d1075e57b0917c98ee6e>
+ is significant and very mildly concerning: as well as twiddling some
+ formatting (for the good), it changes that ``*`` to ``+`` to deny bare else,
+ which is a breaking change, for unlikely but reasonable and plausible code.
+ I’ve commented on #23 and #39 to this effect; we’ll see what comes of it.
+ (It could be reverted, it could be ignored, it could be released as 2.0.0.)
+
+ There are a couple of extraneous files in the package (.gitignore,
+ .github/workflows/main.yml), but they’re small enough that I won’t complain.
+
+ I think this crate is overused and most places it’s used would be better
+ served by writing the negations themselves, which are often no longer and
+ often clearer.
+----- SIGN CREV PROOF -----
+ex_TABmVr_CTEY6B5C-NDKk7ciKdCK1bLf6ltjpXyoVknvyAC2AnRjA5rlPX_5ORQMeHmzJ2UxWUR0RdgBjYAQ
+----- END CREV PROOF -----
+