Really, the uint32_t is only an optimization; any kind of unit
should work fine. Some users might want to use time_t or
monotime_coarse_t or something like that.
Begin by creating a lowest-level triple of the types needed to
implement a token bucket: a configuration, a timestamp, and the raw
bucket itself.
Note that for low-level buckets, the units of the timestamp and the
bucket itself are unspecified: each user can use a different type.
(This patch breaks check-spaces; a later patch will fix it)
This is a simple search-and-replace to rename the token bucket type
to indicate that it contains both a read and a write bucket, bundled
with their configuration. It's preliminary to refactoring the
bucket type.
This test works by having two post-loop events activate one another
in a tight loop. If the "post-loop" mechanism didn't work, this
would be enough to starve all other events.
This differs from our previous token bucket abstraction in a few
ways:
1) It is an abstraction, and not a collection of fields.
2) It is meant to be used with monotonic timestamps, which should
produce better results than calling gettimeofday over and over.
When size_t is 32 bits, the unit tests can't fit anything more than
4GB-1 into a size_t.
Additionally, tt_int_op() uses "long" -- we need tt_u64_op() to
safely test uint64_t values for equality.
Bug caused by tests for #24782 fix; not in any released Tor.
This patch changes the algorithm of compute_real_max_mem_in_queues() to
use 0.4 * RAM iff the system has more than or equal to 8 GB of RAM, but
will continue to use the old value of 0.75 * RAM if the system have less
than * GB of RAM available.
This patch also adds tests for compute_real_max_mem_in_queues().
See: https://bugs.torproject.org/24782
This roughly doubles our test coverage of the bridges.c module.
* ADD new testing module, .../src/test/test_bridges.c.
* CHANGE a few function declarations from `static` to `STATIC`.
* CHANGE one function in transports.c, transport_get_by_name(), to be
mockable.
* CLOSES#25425: https://bugs.torproject.org/25425
This module doesn't actually need to mock the libevent mainloop at
all: it can just use the regular mainloop that the test environment
sets up.
Part of ticket 23750.
This change makes cpuworker and test_workqueue no longer need to
include event2/event.h. Now workqueue.c needs to include it, but
that is at least somewhat logical here.
There's now no difference in these tests w.r.t. the C or Rust: both
fail miserably (well, Rust fails with nice descriptive errors, and C
gives you a traceback, because, well, C).
The DoS potential is slightly higher in C now due to some differences to the
Rust code, see the C_RUST_DIFFERS tags in src/rust/protover/tests/protover.rs.
Also, the comment about "failing at the splitting stage" in Rust wasn't true,
since when we split, we ignore empty chunks (e.g. "1--1" parses into
"(1,None),(None,1)" and "None" can't be parsed into an integer).
Finally, the comment about "Rust seems to experience an internal error" is only
true in debug mode, where u32s are bounds-checked at runtime. In release mode,
code expressing the equivalent of this test will error with
`Err(ProtoverError::Unparseable)` because 4294967295 is too large.
Previously, if "Link=1-5" was supported, and you asked protover_all_supported()
(or protover::all_supported() in Rust) if it supported "Link=3-999", the C
version would return "Link=3-999" and the Rust would return "Link=6-999". These
both behave the same now, i.e. both return "Link=6-999".
There's now no difference in these tests w.r.t. the C or Rust: both
fail miserably (well, Rust fails with nice descriptive errors, and C
gives you a traceback, because, well, C).
The DoS potential is slightly higher in C now due to some differences to the
Rust code, see the C_RUST_DIFFERS tags in src/rust/protover/tests/protover.rs.
Also, the comment about "failing at the splitting stage" in Rust wasn't true,
since when we split, we ignore empty chunks (e.g. "1--1" parses into
"(1,None),(None,1)" and "None" can't be parsed into an integer).
Finally, the comment about "Rust seems to experience an internal error" is only
true in debug mode, where u32s are bounds-checked at runtime. In release mode,
code expressing the equivalent of this test will error with
`Err(ProtoverError::Unparseable)` because 4294967295 is too large.
Previously, if "Link=1-5" was supported, and you asked protover_all_supported()
(or protover::all_supported() in Rust) if it supported "Link=3-999", the C
version would return "Link=3-999" and the Rust would return "Link=6-999". These
both behave the same now, i.e. both return "Link=6-999".
