mirror of
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor.git
synced 2024-11-24 04:13:28 +01:00
r14170@tombo: nickm | 2008-02-15 11:50:38 -0500
Fix or downgrade a bunch of xxx020 items. svn:r13527
This commit is contained in:
parent
275bb57a77
commit
ff64e78b20
@ -865,6 +865,7 @@ router_get_consensus_status_by_nickname(const char *nickname,
|
||||
if (!current_consensus || !nickname)
|
||||
return NULL;
|
||||
|
||||
/* Is this name really a hexadecimal identity digest? */
|
||||
if (nickname[0] == '$') {
|
||||
if (base16_decode(digest, DIGEST_LEN, nickname+1, strlen(nickname+1))<0)
|
||||
return NULL;
|
||||
@ -874,16 +875,23 @@ router_get_consensus_status_by_nickname(const char *nickname,
|
||||
return networkstatus_vote_find_entry(current_consensus, digest);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Is there a server that is Named with this name? */
|
||||
if (named_server_map)
|
||||
named_id = strmap_get_lc(named_server_map, nickname);
|
||||
if (named_id)
|
||||
return networkstatus_vote_find_entry(current_consensus, named_id);
|
||||
|
||||
/* Okay; is this name listed as Unnamed? */
|
||||
if (unnamed_server_map &&
|
||||
strmap_get_lc(unnamed_server_map, nickname))
|
||||
return NULL; /* XXXX020 should we warn? */
|
||||
strmap_get_lc(unnamed_server_map, nickname)) {
|
||||
log_info(LD_GENERAL, "The name %s is listed as Unnamed; it is not the "
|
||||
"canonical name of any server we know.", escaped(nickname));
|
||||
return NULL;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*XXXX020 is this behavior really what we want? */
|
||||
/* This name is not canonical for any server; go through the list and
|
||||
* see who it matches. */
|
||||
/*XXXX021 This is inefficient. */
|
||||
matches = smartlist_create();
|
||||
SMARTLIST_FOREACH(current_consensus->routerstatus_list,
|
||||
routerstatus_t *, lrs,
|
||||
@ -1000,7 +1008,9 @@ update_v2_networkstatus_cache_downloads(time_t now)
|
||||
* doing a tunneled conn. In that case it should be or_port.
|
||||
* How to guess from here? Maybe make the function less general
|
||||
* and have it know that it's looking for dir conns. -RD */
|
||||
/* We are already fetching this one. */
|
||||
/* Only directory caches download v2 networkstatuses, and they
|
||||
* don't use tunneled connections. I think it's okay to ignore
|
||||
* this. */
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
}
|
||||
strlcpy(resource, "fp/", sizeof(resource));
|
||||
|
@ -503,7 +503,7 @@ relay_send_command_from_edge(uint16_t stream_id, circuit_t *circ,
|
||||
|
||||
if (cell_direction == CELL_DIRECTION_OUT && circ->n_conn) {
|
||||
/* if we're using relaybandwidthrate, this conn wants priority */
|
||||
/* XXXX020 the call to time() seems little too frequent */
|
||||
/* XXXX021 the call to time() seems little too frequent */
|
||||
circ->n_conn->client_used = time(NULL);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1511,7 +1511,7 @@ circuit_consider_sending_sendme(circuit_t *circ, crypt_path_t *layer_hint)
|
||||
static int total_cells_allocated = 0;
|
||||
|
||||
#ifdef ENABLE_CELL_POOL /* Defined in ./configure. True by default. */
|
||||
/* XXX020 make cell pools the only option once we know they work and improve
|
||||
/* XXX021 make cell pools the only option once we know they work and improve
|
||||
* matters? -RD */
|
||||
static mp_pool_t *cell_pool = NULL;
|
||||
/** Allocate structures to hold cells. */
|
||||
|
@ -678,8 +678,9 @@ rep_hist_record_mtbf_data(void)
|
||||
|
||||
PUT("data\n");
|
||||
|
||||
/* XXX020 Nick: now bridge auths record this for all routers too.
|
||||
* Should we make them record it only for bridge routers? */
|
||||
/* XXX021 Nick: now bridge auths record this for all routers too.
|
||||
* Should we make them record it only for bridge routers? -RD
|
||||
* Not for 0.2.0. -NM */
|
||||
for (orhist_it = digestmap_iter_init(history_map);
|
||||
!digestmap_iter_done(orhist_it);
|
||||
orhist_it = digestmap_iter_next(history_map,orhist_it)) {
|
||||
|
@ -837,9 +837,11 @@ router_pick_directory_server(authority_type_t type, int flags)
|
||||
if (choice)
|
||||
return choice;
|
||||
|
||||
/* XXXX020 arma: what's the point of *reloading* and trying again?? -NM */
|
||||
/* XXXX020 <arma> once upon a time, reloading set the is_running back
|
||||
/* XXXX021 arma: what's the point of *reloading* and trying again?? -NM */
|
||||
/* XXXX021 <arma> once upon a time, reloading set the is_running back
|
||||
to 1. i think. i bet it has no purpose now. */
|
||||
/* XXXX021 Let's stop reloading in 0.2.1.x, then, and see if anything
|
||||
* breaks -NM */
|
||||
log_info(LD_DIR,"Still no %s router entries. Reloading and trying again.",
|
||||
(flags & PDS_IGNORE_FASCISTFIREWALL) ? "known" : "reachable");
|
||||
if (router_reload_router_list()) {
|
||||
@ -2447,8 +2449,9 @@ routerlist_remove_old(routerlist_t *rl, signed_descriptor_t *sd, int idx)
|
||||
idx = sd->routerlist_index;
|
||||
}
|
||||
tor_assert(0 <= idx && idx < smartlist_len(rl->old_routers));
|
||||
/* XXX020 edmanm's bridge relay triggered the following assert while
|
||||
* running 0.2.0.12-alpha. */
|
||||
/* XXXX edmanm's bridge relay triggered the following assert while
|
||||
* running 0.2.0.12-alpha. If anybody triggers this again, see if we
|
||||
* can ge a backtrace. */
|
||||
tor_assert(smartlist_get(rl->old_routers, idx) == sd);
|
||||
tor_assert(idx == sd->routerlist_index);
|
||||
|
||||
@ -3288,8 +3291,10 @@ router_load_extrainfo_from_string(const char *s, const char *eos,
|
||||
ei->cache_info.identity_digest,
|
||||
DIGEST_LEN);
|
||||
smartlist_string_remove(requested_fingerprints, fp);
|
||||
/* XXX020 We silently let people stuff us with extrainfos we
|
||||
* didn't ask for. Is this a problem? -RD */
|
||||
/* We silently let people stuff us with extrainfos we didn't ask for,
|
||||
* so long as we would have wanted them anyway. Since we always fetch
|
||||
* all the extrainfos we want, and we never actually act on them
|
||||
* inside Tor, this should be harmless. */
|
||||
}
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
@ -3662,7 +3667,10 @@ launch_router_descriptor_downloads(smartlist_t *downloadable, time_t now)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
/* XXX020 should we consider having even the dir mirrors delay
|
||||
* a little bit, so we don't load the authorities as much? -RD */
|
||||
* a little bit, so we don't load the authorities as much? -RD
|
||||
* I don't think so. If we do, clients that want those descriptors may
|
||||
* not actually find them if the caches haven't got them yet. -NM
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
if (! should_delay && n_downloadable) {
|
||||
int i, n_per_request;
|
||||
@ -4328,7 +4336,7 @@ routerlist_assert_ok(routerlist_t *rl)
|
||||
tor_assert(&(r->cache_info) == sd2);
|
||||
tor_assert(r->cache_info.routerlist_index == r_sl_idx);
|
||||
#if 0
|
||||
/* XXXX020.
|
||||
/* XXXX021.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* Hoo boy. We need to fix this one, and the fix is a bit tricky, so
|
||||
* commenting this out is just a band-aid.
|
||||
@ -4343,7 +4351,8 @@ routerlist_assert_ok(routerlist_t *rl)
|
||||
* refactoring once consensus directories are in. For now,
|
||||
* this rep violation is probably harmless: an adversary can make us
|
||||
* reset our retry count for an extrainfo, but that's not the end
|
||||
* of the world.
|
||||
* of the world. Changing the representation in 0.2.0.x would just
|
||||
* destabilize the codebase.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (!tor_digest_is_zero(r->cache_info.extra_info_digest)) {
|
||||
signed_descriptor_t *sd3 =
|
||||
@ -4360,7 +4369,7 @@ routerlist_assert_ok(routerlist_t *rl)
|
||||
tor_assert(sd == sd2);
|
||||
tor_assert(sd->routerlist_index == sd_sl_idx);
|
||||
#if 0
|
||||
/* XXXX020 see above. */
|
||||
/* XXXX021 see above. */
|
||||
if (!tor_digest_is_zero(sd->extra_info_digest)) {
|
||||
signed_descriptor_t *sd3 =
|
||||
sdmap_get(rl->desc_by_eid_map, sd->extra_info_digest);
|
||||
@ -4386,7 +4395,7 @@ routerlist_assert_ok(routerlist_t *rl)
|
||||
d, DIGEST_LEN));
|
||||
sd = sdmap_get(rl->desc_by_eid_map,
|
||||
ei->cache_info.signed_descriptor_digest);
|
||||
// tor_assert(sd); // XXXX020 see above
|
||||
// tor_assert(sd); // XXXX021 see above
|
||||
if (sd) {
|
||||
tor_assert(!memcmp(ei->cache_info.signed_descriptor_digest,
|
||||
sd->extra_info_digest, DIGEST_LEN));
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user