Require 'unsafe' keyword for custom implementations of nom traits #90
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
nom_locate
progressively advances through a fragment by slicing it, but expects to be able to go backward by as much as it advanced. This is normally fine, but custom implementations ofnom
types could cause UB by implementing slicing incorrectly.After this commit, they will need to implement the unsafe trait
RewindableFragment
, putting the burden of soundness on these implementations.@stephaneyfx provides an example of a maliciously constructed fragment type exercising this behavior in GH-88.
I tried to keep constraint to the bare minimum, but it probably makes sense to require the trait to be implemented when calling
LocatedSpan::new
/LocatedSpan::new_extra
and not having to care later, too. Thought?@AngelOfSol @ThePerkinrex @zertosh I believe you all have crates with custom types that implement the
nom
traits. Would this work for you? (Of course I'll do a major version bump when pushing this change to crates.io)Closes GH-88.