[derefr]

Reserving just the crate names won't cover your bases, though, no? I'm not clear on what exists as part of a crate—but if there's any user control over the filenames of the contents of the crate (e.g. if the crate's source code is in there) then any crate might contain a file named e.g. "nul.rs", triggering the same problem.

[kibwen]

I think you're misunderstanding the problem described in the OP. When you build a project via cargo using the default settings, it fetches the git repository at https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index to enable it to resolve dependencies locally. This git repository contains metadata for each library on crates.io, where the metadata for a given library is located in a file with the same name as the name of that library. When the OP uploaded a library whose name was an illegal filename on Windows, git unexpectedly choked when updating the local crate index repo, impacting all Windows users.

It sounds like the concern you're describing is a different matter. It's likely true that if the source of a crate contains a file named "nul.rs", cargo on Windows will fail if it attempts to git-fetch the source (unless you're using Linux Subsystem for Windows, anyway). While this would indeed be a problem, it would only affect users who elect to use specific libraries, rather than serving as a denial-of-service for every Rust user on Windows.

[derefr]

Ah, I was just misunderstanding the format of the repo. I was assuming it was more similar to a ports tree, where each library is specified in the index using a directory which can have random files sitting in it, like Makefiles, .patch files, etc. along with a metadata spec file.

Looking at the repo you linked, there's no allowance for that, so at least in this case you should be safe.

[brianberns]

Ah, this is the key info that I was missing. It's not at all clear from the article.

[wand3r]

I was going to ask how a remote pckg could do that. Not knowing how rust works (or package managers apparently) I didn't understand how it could be widespread. Makes sense, damn; that's substantial.

[kibwen]

I'm not sure how other package managers do it (it should be noted that this approach was designed to avoid some problems that other package managers have encountered), but there is still room for improvement here: ideally, I think we'd be hashing crate names rather than storing them verbatim on the filesystem, to enforce more uniform distribution in the trie.

[wand3r]

Interesting, hashing them makes sense but it was a corner case; huge outage but it was definitely something that was easy to overlook for sure