Skip to content

Bump astral-tokio-tar to 0.6.2 for RUSTSEC-2026-0145#2587

Open
fnando wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
astral-tokio-tar-RUSTSEC-2026-0145
Open

Bump astral-tokio-tar to 0.6.2 for RUSTSEC-2026-0145#2587
fnando wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
astral-tokio-tar-RUSTSEC-2026-0145

Conversation

@fnando
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@fnando fnando commented May 22, 2026

What

Bumps astral-tokio-tar from 0.6.1 to 0.6.2.

Why

Advisory fix for RUSTSEC-2026-0145.

Known limitations

Cargo.lock also shows incidental version moves on windows-sys, socket2, and rustix subtrees. These are MSRV-aware resolver re-picks triggered by re-resolution after the bump, not deliberate downgrades.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings May 22, 2026 23:00
@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this to Backlog (Not Ready) in DevX May 22, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot wasn't able to review any files in this pull request.

@claude
Copy link
Copy Markdown

claude Bot commented May 22, 2026

Claude finished @fnando's task in 2m 17s —— View job


Review

  • Load context and PR data
  • Inspect the Cargo.lock diff
  • Verify advisory and version change
  • Check for side-effects (other crates moved)
  • Post review

Summary

The targeted change — astral-tokio-tar 0.6.1 → 0.6.2 for RUSTSEC-2026-0145 — looks correct. Cargo.toml declares astral-tokio-tar = "0.6.0" (caret), so 0.6.2 satisfies the constraint without manifest churn. Lockfile-only PRs for advisory fixes are the right shape.

Findings

🟡 Incidental transitive downgrades (left an inline comment on Cargo.lock).
Out of 12 changed package entries in the lock, only 1 is the intended astral-tokio-tar bump — the other 11 are unrelated downgrades of transitive deps:

Crate main this PR notes
astral-tokio-tar 0.6.1 0.6.2 ✅ intended (advisory fix)
windows-sys (via colored) 0.59.0 0.48.0 ⚠️ downgrade
windows-sys (via getrandom/quinn-udp/rustls/tempfile) 0.60.2 / 0.59.0 0.52.0 ⚠️ downgrade
socket2 (via hyper-util/quinn/quinn-udp) 0.6.0 0.5.10 ⚠️ downgrade
rustix subtree (linux-raw-sys/windows-sys) newer older ⚠️ downgrade

The PR description attributes these to "MSRV-aware resolver re-picks", but the workspace rust-version = "1.93.0" is high — MSRV-aware resolution is meant to allow newer versions, not force older ones. None of these crates are direct deps in any Cargo.toml, and astral-tokio-tar doesn't depend on socket2 / windows-sys / rustix directly, so 0.6.2 shouldn't force any of them backwards. This pattern more closely resembles a full cargo update (or a regen with a different local toolchain) than a surgical bump.

Recommendation: rerun with --precise so the diff is only the advisory fix:

git checkout origin/main -- Cargo.lock
cargo update -p astral-tokio-tar --precise 0.6.2

That keeps the security audit trail clean and avoids re-introducing older transitive versions that may carry their own advisories.

Verification I couldn't do here

  • I didn't run cargo build / cargo audit in this review env — please ensure CI is green.
  • I can't reach the RUSTSEC database from this environment to independently confirm 0.6.2 patches RUSTSEC-2026-0145; worth eyeballing the advisory link / changelog.

Verdict

Approve the intent (advisory fix), but recommend reworking the lockfile to a single-package change before merging. If the incidental downgrades are intentional, the PR description should explain why the newer transitive versions had to go.
• Branch: astral-tokio-tar-RUSTSEC-2026-0145

@fnando fnando self-assigned this May 22, 2026
@fnando fnando moved this from Backlog (Not Ready) to Needs Review in DevX May 22, 2026
@fnando fnando requested review from leighmcculloch and mootz12 May 22, 2026 23:01
@fnando fnando enabled auto-merge (squash) May 22, 2026 23:01
Comment thread Cargo.lock
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Needs Review

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants