fix(napi): potential double free issue

[kuzeyardabulut]

Hi,
I found a memory-safety/soundness issue in this crate while scanning Rust code for potential vulnerabilities. This PR contains a fix for the issue.

Issue Description

napi-rs/crates/napi/src/bindgen_runtime/module_register.rs

Lines 64 to 70 in 30534d4

	let mut temp = unsafe { Vec::from_raw_parts(inner, length, length) };
	temp.push(item);
	// Inner Vec has been reallocated, so we need to update the pointer
	if temp.as_mut_ptr() != inner {
	self.inner.store(temp.as_mut_ptr(), Ordering::Relaxed);
	}
	std::mem::forget(temp);

napi-rs/crates/napi/src/bindgen_runtime/module_register.rs

Lines 50 to 57 in 30534d4

	let mut temp = unsafe { Vec::from_raw_parts(inner, length, length) };
	f(temp.as_mut_slice());
	// Inner Vec has been reallocated, so we need to update the pointer
	if temp.as_mut_ptr() != inner {
	self.inner.store(temp.as_mut_ptr(), Ordering::Relaxed);
	}
	self.length.store(temp.len(), Ordering::Relaxed);
	std::mem::forget(temp);

If a panic!() occurs between the Vec::from_raw_parts function, including the Vec::from_raw_parts function itself, and std::mem::forget, a double free vulnerability emerges.

Fix

In Rust, std::mem::forget does not actually free the memory, instead it simply allows the memory to leak. This can lead to double free when the data object goes out of scope and its destructor is called automatically. The modification here uses std::mem::ManuallyDrop to wrap data. This ensures that data will not be automatically dropped when it goes out of scope, thus avoiding a double free scenario. With ManuallyDrop, we explicitly state that the data variable should not be dropped, thus avoiding any potential double free issues.