This changes a LOT of code but in the end, behavior is the same.
Unfortunately, many functions had to be changed to accomodate but in majority
of cases, to become simpler.
Functions are also removed specifically those that were there to convert an
IPv4 as a host format to a tor_addr_t. Those are not needed anymore.
The IPv4 address field has been standardized to "ipv4_addr", the ORPort to
"ipv4_orport" (currently IPv6 uses ipv6_orport) and DirPort to "ipv4_dirport".
This is related to Sponsor 55 work that adds IPv6 support for relays and this
work is needed in order to have a common interface between IPv4 and IPv6.
Closes#40043.
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
In practice, there will be at most one ipv4 address and ipv6 address
for now, but this code is designed to not care which address is
which until forced to do so.
This patch does not yet actually create extend_info_t objects with
multiple addresses.
Closes#34069.
Add tests for relays sending IPv6 extend cells in
circuit_send_next_onion_skin().
Clients also use this code, check that they can only extend over IPv4
(for now).
Part of 33222.
Split "can extend over IPv6" and "has advertised IPv6 ORPort" into
separate functions. They currently have the same result, but this may
change in 33818 with ExtendAllowIPv6Addresses.
Part of 33817.
Some tests use IF_BUG_ONCE(), which is fatal when ALL_BUGS_ARE_FATAL,
after the fixes in 33917.
Also run "make autostyle" on these changes.
Part of 33817.
Allow extend cells with IPv6-only link specifiers.
Warn and fail if both IPv4 and IPv6 are invalid.
Also warn if the IPv4 or IPv6 addresses are unexpectedly internal,
but continue with the valid address.
Part of 33817.
Coverity wants us to free everything that we are potentially
allocating, even stuff where allocating it would be a bug. Adding
a smartlist_free() here will fix the warning.
Fixes bug 31452; bugfix on 16a0b7ed67, which is not in
any released Tor. This is CID 1447292.
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>
Check that route_len_for_purpose() (helper for new_route_len())
correctly fails a non-fatal bug assertion if it encounters an
unhandled circuit purpose when it is called with exit node info.
