ci: cargo-audit ressurect with new 0.21.1 version

[storopoli]

Description

Enable security.yml GH Actions workflow with the new [email protected] release.

cargo-audit version 0.21.1 no longer gives errors when parsing our Cargo.lock.

Hence, we can activate it back.
CI is failing because of REAL RUSTSEC warnings (amongst them the vulnerability, RED alert/error, from idna can be fixed with #542).

Tagging @AaronFeickert if he wants to take a look, and is available.

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature/Enhancement (non-breaking change which adds functionality or enhances an existing one)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Documentation update
• Refactor
• New or updated tests
• Dependency Update

Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my code.
• I have commented my code where necessary.
• I have updated the documentation if needed.
• My changes do not introduce new warnings.
• I have added tests that prove my changes are effective or that my feature works.
• New and existing tests pass with my changes.

Related Issues

STR-601

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 55.98%. Comparing base (6651b20) to head (e6d5c7c).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #619   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   55.97%   55.98%           
=======================================
  Files         315      315           
  Lines       33428    33428           
=======================================
+ Hits        18712    18713    +1     
+ Misses      14716    14715    -1     

see 4 files with indirect coverage changes

[github-actions]

Commit: 08af75b

SP1 Performance Test Results

program	cycles	success
BTC_BLOCKSPACE	30,357,421	✅
EL_BLOCK	98,534	✅
CL_BLOCK	57,370	✅
L1_BATCH	30,387,324	✅
L2_BATCH	5,473	✅
CHECKPOINT	15,895	✅

[AaronFeickert]

Happy to see this back again! ACK, modulo the note about failing CI.

[Rajil1213]

There is still a vulnerability that we should resolve if we can before merging this.

EDIT: I see that the vulnerability is supposed to be resolved via #542. I don't think there's a point in enabling the security checks just to have it fail. If it's okay, we should wait for that other ticket.

[storopoli]

There is still a vulnerability that we should resolve if we can before merging this.

EDIT: I see that the vulnerability is supposed to be resolved via #542. I don't think there's a point in enabling the security checks just to have it fail. If it's okay, we should wait for that other ticket.

Sure, I'll mark this as a draft and once #542 gets merged I'll rebase and then we can 1-Rajill-ACK-merge the PR.

[storopoli]

@Rajil1213 all green now!