See ticket #19132 for the clang/llvm warning.
Since voting_schedule is a global static struct, it will be initialized
to zero even without explicitly initializing it with {0}.
This is what the C spec says:
If an object that has automatic storage duration is not initialized
explicitly, its value is indeterminate. If an object that has static
storage duration is not initialized explicitly, then:
— if it has pointer type, it is initialized to a null pointer;
— if it has arithmetic type, it is initialized to (positive or unsigned) zero;
— if it is an aggregate, every member is initialized (recursively) according to these rules;
— if it is a union, the first named member is initialized (recursively) according to these rules.
One of the last piece that parses the votes and consensus in order to update
our state and make decision for the SR values.
We need to inform the SR subsystem when we set the current consensus because
this can be called when loaded from file or downloaded from other authorities
or computed.
The voting schedule is used for the SR timings since we are bound to the
voting system.
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
Signed-off-by: George Kadianakis <desnacked@riseup.net>
This commit adds the commit(s) line in the vote as well as the SR values. It
also has the mechanism to add the majority SRVs in the consensus.
Signed-off-by: George Kadianakis <desnacked@riseup.net>
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
This commit introduces two new files with their header.
"shared_random.c" contains basic functions to initialize the state and allow
commit decoding for the disk state to be able to parse them from disk.
"shared_random_state.c" contains everything that has to do with the state
for both our memory and disk. Lots of helper functions as well as a
mechanism to query the state in a synchronized way.
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
Signed-off-by: George Kadianakis <desnacked@riseup.net>
So, back long ago, XXX012 meant, "before Tor 0.1.2 is released, we
had better revisit this comment and fix it!"
But we have a huge pile of such comments accumulated for a large
number of released versions! Not cool.
So, here's what I tried to do:
* 0.2.9 and 0.2.8 are retained, since those are not yet released.
* XXX+ or XXX++ or XXX++++ or whatever means, "This one looks
quite important!"
* The others, after one-by-one examination, are downgraded to
plain old XXX. Which doesn't mean they aren't a problem -- just
that they cannot possibly be a release-blocking problem.
With the fix for #17150, I added a duplicate certificate here. Here
I remove the original location in 0.2.8. (I wouldn't want to do
that in 027, due to the amount of authority-voting-related code
drift.)
Closes 19073.
Make directory authorities write the v3-status-votes file out
to disk earlier in the consensus process, so we have the votes
even if we abort the consensus process later on.
Resolves ticket 19036.
I had a half-built mechanism to track, during the voting process,
whether the Ed25519 value (or lack thereof) reflected a true
consensus among the authorities. But we never actually inserted this
field in the consensus.
The key idea here is that we first attempt to match up votes by pairs
of <Ed,RSA>, where <Ed> can be NULL if we're told that there is no
Ed key. If this succeeds, then we can treat all those votes as 'a
consensus for Ed'. And we can include all other votes with a
matching RSA key and no statement about Ed keys as being "also about
the same relay."
After that, we look for RSA keys we haven't actually found an entry
for yet, and see if there are enough votes for them, NOT considering
Ed keys. If there are, we match them as before, but we treat them
as "not a consensus about ed".
When we include an entry in a consensus, if it does not reflect a
consensus about ed keys, then we include a new NoEdConsensus flag on
it.
This is all only for consensus method 22 or later.
Also see corresponding dir-spec patch.
Previously, I had left in some debugging code with /*XXX*/ after it,
which nobody noticed. Live and learn! Next time I will use /*XXX
DO NOT COMMIT*/ or something.
We need to define a new consensus method for this; consensus method
21 shouldn't actually be used.
Fixes bug 17702; bugfix on 0.2.7.2-alpha.
They are no longer "all" digests, but only the "common" digests.
Part of 17795.
This is an automated patch I made with a couple of perl one-liners:
perl -i -pe 's/crypto_digest_all/crypto_common_digests/g;' src/*/*.[ch]
perl -i -pe 's/\bdigests_t\b/common_digests_t/g;' src/*/*.[ch]
This is a new collator type that follows proposal 220 for deciding
which identities to include. The rule is (approximately):
If a <ed,rsa> identity is listed by more than half of authorities,
include it. And include all <rsa> votes about that node as
matching.
Otherwise, if an <*,rsa> or <rsa> identity is listed by more than
half of the authorities, and no <ed,rsa> has been listed, include
it.
* Include ed25519 identities in votes
* Include "no ed25519 identity" in votes
* Include some commented-out code about identity voting. (This
will disappear.)
* Include some functions for identity voting (These will disappear.)
* Enforce uniqueness in ed25519 keys within a vote
Decrease minimum consensus interval to 10 seconds
when TestingTorNetwork is set. (Or 5 seconds for
the first consensus.)
Fix code that assumes larger interval values.
This assists in quickly bootstrapping a testing
Tor network.
Fixes bugs 13718 & 13823.
One pain point in evolving the Tor design and implementing has been
adding code that makes clients reject directory documents that they
previously would have accepted, if those descriptors actually exist.
When this happened, the clients would get the document, reject it,
and then decide to try downloading it again, ad infinitum. This
problem becomes particularly obnoxious with authorities, since if
some authorities accept a descriptor that others don't, the ones
that don't accept it would go crazy trying to re-fetch it over and
over. (See for example ticket #9286.)
This patch tries to solve this problem by tracking, if a descriptor
isn't parseable, what its digest was, and whether it is invalid
because of some flaw that applies to the portion containing the
digest. (This excludes RSA signature problems: RSA signatures
aren't included in the digest. This means that a directory
authority can still put another directory authority into a loop by
mentioning a descriptor, and then serving that descriptor with an
invalid RSA signatures. But that would also make the misbehaving
directory authority get DoSed by the server it's attacking, so it's
not much of an issue.)
We already have a mechanism to mark something undownloadable with
downloadstatus_mark_impossible(); we use that here for
microdescriptors, extrainfos, and router descriptors.
Unit tests to follow in another patch.
Closes ticket #11243.
Avoid 4 null pointer errors under clang shallow analysis (the default when
building under Xcode) by using tor_assert() to prove that the pointers
aren't null. Resolves issue 13284 via minor code refactoring.
Most of these are in somewhat non-obvious code where it is probably
a good idea to initialize variables and add extra assertions anyway.
Closes 13036. Patches from "teor".
