The last hop in vanguard circuits can be an RP/IP/HSDir.
Since vanguard circuits are at least 3 hops (sometimes 4) before this node,
this change will not cause A - B - A paths.
Tor preemptiely builds circuits and they can be cannibalized later in their
lifetime. A Guard node can become unusable (from our guard state) but we can
still have circuits using that node opened. It is important to not pick those
circuits for any usage through the cannibalization process.
Fixes#24469
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
Retry directory downloads when we get our first bridge descriptor
during bootstrap or while reconnecting to the network. Keep retrying
every time we get a bridge descriptor, until we have a reachable bridge.
Stop delaying bridge descriptor fetches when we have cached bridge
descriptors. Instead, only delay bridge descriptor fetches when we
have at least one reachable bridge.
Fixes bug 24367; bugfix on 0.2.0.3-alpha.
This commit was made mechanically by this perl script:
\#!/usr/bin/perl -w -i -p
next if /^#define FREE_AND_NULL/;
s/\bFREE_AND_NULL\((\w+),/FREE_AND_NULL\(${1}_t, ${1}_free_,/;
s/\bFREE_AND_NULL_UNMATCHED\(/FREE_AND_NULL\(/;
Stop checking for bridge descriptors when we actually want to know if
any bridges are usable. This avoids potential bootstrapping issues.
Fixes bug 24367; bugfix on 0.2.0.3-alpha.
Stop stalling when bridges are changed at runtime. Stop stalling when
old bridge descriptors are cached, but they are not in use.
Fixes bug 24367; bugfix on 23347 in 0.3.2.1-alpha.
We used to check whether we have enough filtered guards (guard set when
torrc is applied) but that's not good enough, since that might be bad in
some cases where many guards are not reachable (might cause overblocking
and hence reacahbility issues).
We now check if we have enough reachable filtered guards before applying
md restrictions which should prevent overblocking.
When the new path selection logic went into place, I accidentally
dropped the code that considered the _family_ of the exit node when
deciding if the guard was usable, and we didn't catch that during
code review.
This patch makes the guard_restriction_t code consider the exit
family as well, and adds some (hopefully redundant) checks for the
case where we lack a node_t for a guard but we have a bridge_info_t
for it.
Fixes bug 22753; bugfix on 0.3.0.1-alpha. Tracked as TROVE-2016-006
and CVE-2017-0377.
We used to not set the guard state in launch_direct_bridge_descriptor_fetch().
So when a bridge descriptor fetch failed, the guard subsystem would never
learn about the fail (and hence the guard's reachability state would not
be updated).
We used to not set the guard state in launch_direct_bridge_descriptor_fetch().
So when a bridge descriptor fetch failed, the guard subsystem would never
learn about the fail (and hence the guard's reachability state would not
be updated).
In addition to not wanting to build circuits until we can see most
of the paths in the network, and in addition to not wanting to build
circuits until we have a consensus ... we shouldn't build circuits
till all of our (in-use) primary guards have descriptors that we can
use for them.
This is another bug 21242 fix.
Actually, it's _fine_ to use a descriptorless guard for fetching
directory info -- we just shouldn't use it when building circuits.
Fortunately, we already have a "usage" flag that we can use here.
Partial fix for bug 21242.
Letting the maximum sample size grow proportionally to the number of
guards defeats its purpose to a certain extent. Noted by asn during
code review.
Fixes bug 20920; bug not in any released (or merged) version of Tor.
- Correctly maintain the previous guard selection in choose_guard_selection().
- Print bridge identifier instead of nothing in entry_guard_describe()._
This is an important thing I hadn't considered when writing prop271:
sometimes you have to restrict what guard you use for a particular
circuit. Most frequently, that would be because you plan to use a
certain node as your exit, and so you can't choose that for your
guard.
This change means that the upgrade-waiting-circuits algorithm needs
a slight tweak too: circuit A cannot block circuit B from upgrading
if circuit B needs to follow a restriction that circuit A does not
follow.
George pointed out that (-1,0,1) for (never usable, maybe usable
later, usable right now) was a pretty rotten convention that made
the code harder to read.
