Switch address comparisons in policies to be exact rather than semantic. Until we do ipv6 exit policies and until we know whether we even allow ::ffff:0:0/96 addresses, there is no point in doing "semantic" comparisons. This was also showing up on oprofile.

svn:r17803
This commit is contained in:
Nick Mathewson 2008-12-29 01:47:33 +00:00
parent 870fd18b8f
commit 46f8ef8116

View File

@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ compare_known_tor_addr_to_addr_policy(const tor_addr_t *addr, uint16_t port,
SMARTLIST_FOREACH_BEGIN(policy, addr_policy_t *, tmpe) {
/* Address is known */
if (!tor_addr_compare_masked(addr, &tmpe->addr, tmpe->maskbits,
CMP_SEMANTIC)) {
CMP_EXACT)) {
if (port >= tmpe->prt_min && port <= tmpe->prt_max) {
/* Exact match for the policy */
return tmpe->policy_type == ADDR_POLICY_ACCEPT ?
@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ compare_known_tor_addr_to_addr_policy_noport(const tor_addr_t *addr,
SMARTLIST_FOREACH_BEGIN(policy, addr_policy_t *, tmpe) {
if (!tor_addr_compare_masked(addr, &tmpe->addr, tmpe->maskbits,
CMP_SEMANTIC)) {
CMP_EXACT)) {
if (tmpe->prt_min <= 1 && tmpe->prt_max >= 65535) {
/* Definitely matches, since it covers all ports. */
if (tmpe->policy_type == ADDR_POLICY_ACCEPT) {
@ -708,7 +708,7 @@ addr_policy_covers(addr_policy_t *a, addr_policy_t *b)
/* a has more fixed bits than b; it can't possibly cover b. */
return 0;
}
if (tor_addr_compare_masked(&a->addr, &b->addr, a->maskbits, CMP_SEMANTIC)) {
if (tor_addr_compare_masked(&a->addr, &b->addr, a->maskbits, CMP_EXACT)) {
/* There's a fixed bit in a that's set differently in b. */
return 0;
}
@ -731,7 +731,7 @@ addr_policy_intersects(addr_policy_t *a, addr_policy_t *b)
minbits = a->maskbits;
else
minbits = b->maskbits;
if (tor_addr_compare_masked(&a->addr, &b->addr, minbits, CMP_SEMANTIC))
if (tor_addr_compare_masked(&a->addr, &b->addr, minbits, CMP_EXACT))
return 0;
if (a->prt_max < b->prt_min || b->prt_max < a->prt_min)
return 0;