Skip to content

← Public intelligence

crates.io package

spin

Open actionable advisories and recorded vendor fixes. This public package view has no inventory attached and cannot establish whether your deployment is affected. A vendor fix never resolves your finding; verify your installed version and the source guidance.

Open advisories

2 actionable advisories, newest first. Withdrawn advisories and news are excluded. Coverage is partial.

  1. Unratedcrates.ioPublished

    spin-rs initialisation failure in Once::try_call_once can lead to undefined behaviour for other initialisers

    GHSA-2qv5-7mw5-j3cg

    Affected
    • crates.io spin >= 0.9.3, < 0.9.8
    Fixed in
    0.9.8· Vendor fix available
    Issue
    Once::trycallonce is unsound if invoked more than once concurrently and any call fails to initialise successfully.

    Recommended action: Upgrade to 0.9.8 or later, then redeploy and verify.A vendor fix does not resolve your finding until you verify it in your own systems.

    Sources:github.comSource checked Evidence →
  2. High, CVSS 7.5crates.ioPublished

    Wrong memory orderings violates mutual exclusion in spin

    CVE-2019-16137 · GHSA-hv7x-f3pv-gpwr

    Affected
    • crates.io spin < 0.5.2
    Fixed in
    0.5.2· Vendor fix available
    Issue
    Wrong memory orderings inside the RwLock implementation allow for two writers to acquire the lock at the same time. The drop implementation used Ordering::Relaxed, which allows the compiler or CPU to reorder a mutable access on the locked data after the lock has been yielded. Only users of the RwLock implementation are affected. Users of Once (including users of lazystatic with the spinnostd feature enabled) are NOT affected. On strongly ordered CPU architectures like x86, the only real way that this would lead to a memory corruption is if the compiler reorders an access after the lock is yielded, which is possible but in practice unlikely. It is a more serious issue on weakly ordered architectures such as ARM which, except in the presence of certain instructions, allow the hardware to decide which accesses are seen at what times. Therefore on an ARM system it is likely that using the wrong memory ordering would result in a memory corruption, even if the compiler itself doesn't…

    Recommended action: Upgrade to 0.5.2 or later, then redeploy and verify.A vendor fix does not resolve your finding until you verify it in your own systems.

    Sources:github.comSource checked Evidence →