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\(/;
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.
This includes:
* making bridge_info_t exposed but opaque
* allowing guards where we don't know an identity
* making it possible to learn the identity of a guard
* creating a guard that lacks a node_t
* remembering a guard's address and port.
* Looking up a guard by address and port.
* Only enforcing the rule that we need a live consensus to update
the "listed" status for guards when we are not using bridges.
This is safe, because no entry_guard_t ever outlives its
guard_selection_t.
I want this because now that multiple guard selections can be active
during one tor session, we should make sure that any information we
register about guards is with respect to the selection that they came
from.
Currently, this code doesn't actually have the contexts behave
differently, (except for the legacy context), but it does switch
back and forth between them nicely.
Some of these will get torrc options to override them too; this
is just the mechanical conversion.
Also, add documentation for a couple of undocumented (but now used)
parameters.
