This solves bug 5283, where client traffic could get sent over the
same circuit as an anonymized connection to a directory, even if
that circuit used an exit node unsuitable for clients. By marking
the directory connection as needs_internal, we ensure that the
(non-internal!) client-traffic connection won't be sent over the
same circuit.
Conflicts:
src/test/test_util.c
Merge the unit tests; I added some when I did this branch against
0.2.2, and then the test format changed and master added more tests.
Conflicts:
src/common/compat.h
Conflict was between replacement of MS_WINDOWS with _WIN32 in
master, and with removal of file_handle from tor_mmap_t struct in
close_file_mapping branch (for bug 5951 fix).
It turns out that if you set the third argument of
__attribute__(format) to 0, GCC and Clang will check the format
argument without expecting to find variadic arguments. This is the
correct behavior for vsnprintf, vasprintf, and vscanf.
I'm hoping this will fix bug 5969 (a clang warning) by telling clang that
the format argument to tor_vasprintf is indeed a format string.
On Windows, getsockname() on a nonblocking apparently won't work
until the connection is done connecting. On XP, it seems to fail by
reporting success and declaring that your address is INADDR_ANY. On the
Win8 preview, though, it fails more loudly and says WSAEINVAL.
Fix for bug 5374; bugfix on 0.1.1.14-alpha.
The parent of "/foo" is "/"; and "/" is its own parent.
This would cause Tor to fail if you tried to have a PF_UNIX control
socket in the root directory. That would be a stupid thing to do
for other reasons, but there's no reason to fail like _this_.
Bug found by Esteban Manchado Velázquez. Fix for bug 5089; bugfix on
Tor 0.2.2.26-beta. Unit test included.
To hit this leak, you need to be a relay that gets a RESOLVE request
or an exit node getting a BEGIN or RESOLVE request. You must either
have unconfigured (and unconfigurable) nameservers, or you must have
somehow set DisableNetwork after a network request arrived but
before you managed to process it.
So, I doubt this is reached often. Still, a leak's a leak. Fix for
bug 5916; bugfix on 0.2.3.9-alpha and 0.1.2.1-alpha.
(When the correct answer is given in terms of seconds since the
epoch, it's hard to be sure that it really is the right answer
just by reading the code.)
