Switch from the unmaintained daemonize crate to a maintained fork #4512
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The daemonize crate was marked as unmaintained. It also has a UB issue, and zellij-client uses the affected API (
Daemonize::privileged_action- see knsd/daemonize#57 for the original PR / report againstdaemonize).This PR switches the dependency to a maintained fork (maintained by me) where that UB issue was resolved in a published version.
daemonixv0.1 is guaranteed to be a drop-in replacement fordaemonizev0.5.0, except that it doesn't have the aforementioned UB issue inDaemonize::privileged_action.In the spirit of making this soundness fix as trivial a change and as easy to review as possible (yes, I have read the contribution guidelines), I have simply switched the crate dependency but kept the imported name the same - this way, the changes are limited to a one-line change in Cargo.toml and the corresponding changes in Cargo.lock.
c.f. https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2025-0069.html