In case the consensus parameters for the rate/burst changes, we need to update
all already established introduction circuits to the newest value.
This commit introduces a "get all intro circ" function from the HS circuitmap
(v2 and v3) so it can be used by the HS DoS module to go over all circuits and
adjust the INTRODUCE2 token bucket parameters.
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
This commit add the hs_dos.{c|h} file that has the purpose of having the
anti-DoS code for onion services.
At this commit, it only has one which is a function that decides if an
INTRODUCE2 can be sent on the given introduction service circuit (S<->IP)
using a simple token bucket.
The rate per second is 25 and allowed burst to 200.
Basic defenses on #15516.
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
This shouldn't be possible while Tor is running, but the tests can
hit this code. Rather than force the tests to add a dummy channel
object, let's just tolerate their incompletely built circuits.
There is other code that uses this value, and some of it is
apparently reachable from inside router_dir_info_changed(), which
routerlist_free() apparently calls. (ouch!) This is a minimal fix
to try to resolve the issue without causing other problems.
Fixes bug 31003. I'm calling this a bugfix on 0.1.2.2-alpha, where
the call to router_dir_info_changed() was added to routerlist_free().
Fix add_onion_helper_clientauth() and add_onion_helper_keyarg() to
explicitly call the appropriate control reply abstractions instead of
allocating a string to pass to their callers.
Part of ticket 30889.
Always publish bridge pluggable transport information in the extra info
descriptor, even if ExtraInfoStatistics is 0. This information is
needed by BridgeDB.
Fixes bug 30956; bugfix on 0.4.1.1-alpha.
This will effectively also deny any bridge to be used as a single hop to the
introduction point since bridge do not authenticate like clients.
Fixes#24963
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
When we consider all circuits in "waiting for guard" state to be promoted to
an "open" state, we were considering all circuits, even the one marked for
close.
This ultiamtely triggers a "circuit_has_opened()" called on the circuit that
is marked for close which then leads to possible undesirable behaviors within
a subsystem.
For instance, the HS subsystem would be unable to find the authentication key
of the introduction point circuit leading to a BUG() warning and a duplicate
mark for close on the circuit.
This commit also adds a unit test to make sure we never select marked for
close circuits when upgrading its guard state from waiting for guard to open.
Fixes#30871
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
When we consider all circuits in "waiting for guard" state to be promoted to
an "open" state, we were considering all circuits, even the one marked for
close.
This ultiamtely triggers a "circuit_has_opened()" called on the circuit that
is marked for close which then leads to possible undesirable behaviors within
a subsystem.
For instance, the HS subsystem would be unable to find the authentication key
of the introduction point circuit leading to a BUG() warning and a duplicate
mark for close on the circuit.
This commit also adds a unit test to make sure we never select marked for
close circuits when upgrading its guard state from waiting for guard to open.
Fixes#30871
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
