cargo package report

Is imbl-sized-chunks safe?

1 known vulnerability.

cvss
not scored

severity out of 10

epss
not scored

chance of exploitation in 30 days

xyz score
not scored

CyberXYZ composite out of 10

fig. 01 — RUSTSEC-2026-0292, the advisory selected below

// 1 advisories

RUSTSEC-2026-0292

UNKNOWN

Chunk::{clear, dropleft, dropright} and InlineArray::{clear, truncate} drop the removed elements before updating the metadata that records which slots hold live values — the left/right index pair for Chunk, the length field for InlineArray. If an element's Drop panics during the drop, that update is never reached, so the collection still treats the already-dropped elements as live. When the collection is later dropped (its destructor walks the range described by the stale metadata), or a subsequent operation touches the same slots, those elements are dropped a second time — a double free (CWE-415) / use-after-free (CWE-416) reachable from safe Rust.

The stale field is left and right for Chunk::clear, left for dropleft, right for dropright, and the length field for both InlineArray methods.

// mitigation

Upgrade to imbl-sized-chunks 0.2.0 or later, which commits the metadata before dropping any element (fixed in jneem/imbl-sized-chunks#14, released in 0.2.0).

Affected
>=0.0.0-0, <0.2.0
Fixed in
not stated
Published
2026-09-04, updated 2026-09-21
Sources
osv
// references
// dependencies

0 direct

Create a free accountfor dependency paths and remediation
// ai model usage

Tracked for PyPI packages. HuggingFace models declare Python dependencies, so cargo packages are not covered.

Checked 2026-09-22 at 17:36 UTC. The most recent advisory here was published 2026-09-04. Updated continuously from NVD, GHSA, OSV and CNA feeds.

Think a verdict here is wrong? Tell us — we respond within 2 business days.
Is imbl-sized-chunks safe? cargo package security report | CyberXYZ