Clean up some XXX comments.

This commit is contained in:
Mike Perry 2012-12-09 23:50:05 -08:00
parent 4590993ff3
commit aa16d59ee7
3 changed files with 4 additions and 5 deletions

View File

@ -1434,10 +1434,6 @@ pathbias_check_close(origin_circuit_t *ocirc, int reason)
if (circ->timestamp_dirty) { if (circ->timestamp_dirty) {
/* Any circuit where there were attempted streams but no successful /* Any circuit where there were attempted streams but no successful
* streams could be bias */ * streams could be bias */
// XXX: May open up attacks if the adversary can force connections
// on unresponsive hosts to use new circs. Vidalia displayes a "Retrying"
// state.. Can we use that? Does optimistic data change this?
log_info(LD_CIRC, log_info(LD_CIRC,
"Circuit %d closed without successful use for reason %d. " "Circuit %d closed without successful use for reason %d. "
"Circuit purpose %d currently %s.", "Circuit purpose %d currently %s.",

View File

@ -1166,6 +1166,7 @@ circuit_has_opened(origin_circuit_t *circ)
* building). */ * building). */
// XXX: Cannibalized now use RELAY_EARLY, which is visible // XXX: Cannibalized now use RELAY_EARLY, which is visible
// to taggers end-to-end! We really need to probe these instead. // to taggers end-to-end! We really need to probe these instead.
// Don't forget to remove this check once that's done!
if (circ->has_opened && if (circ->has_opened &&
circ->build_state->desired_path_len > DEFAULT_ROUTE_LEN) { circ->build_state->desired_path_len > DEFAULT_ROUTE_LEN) {
circ->path_state = PATH_STATE_USE_SUCCEEDED; circ->path_state = PATH_STATE_USE_SUCCEEDED;

View File

@ -697,7 +697,9 @@ connection_ap_process_end_not_open(
/* Path bias: If we get a valid reason code from the exit, /* Path bias: If we get a valid reason code from the exit,
* it wasn't due to tagging */ * it wasn't due to tagging */
// XXX: This relies on recognized+digest being strong enough not // XXX: This relies on recognized+digest being strong enough not
// to be spoofable.. Is that a valid assumption? // to be spoofable.. Is that a valid assumption?
// Or more accurately: is it better than nothing? Can the attack
// be done offline?
circ->path_state = PATH_STATE_USE_SUCCEEDED; circ->path_state = PATH_STATE_USE_SUCCEEDED;
} }