https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/1859
There are two problems in this bug:
1. When an OP makes a .exit request specifying itself as the exit, and the exit
is not yet listed, Tor gets all the routerinfos needed for the circuit but
discovers in circuit_is_acceptable() that its own routerinfo is not in the
routerdigest list and cannot be used. Tor then gets locked in a cycle of
repeating these two steps. When gathering the routerinfos for a circuit,
specifically when the exit has been chosen by .exit notation, Tor needs to
apply the same rules it uses later on when deciding if it can build a
circuit with those routerinfos.
2. A different bug arises in the above situation when the Tor instance's
routerinfo *is* listed in the routerlist, it shares its nickname with a
number of other Tor nodes, and it does not have 'Named' rights to its
nickname.
So for example, if (i) there are five nodes named Bob in the network, (ii) I
am running one of them but am flagged as 'Unnamed' because someone else
claimed the 'Bob' nickname first, and (iii) I run my Tor as both client
and exit the following can happen to me:
- I go to www.evil.com
- I click on a link www.evil.com.bob.exit
- My request will exit through my own Tor node rather than the 'Named'
node Bob or any of the others.
- www.evil.com now knows I am actually browsing from the same computer
that is running my 'Bob' node
So to solve both issues we need to ensure:
- When fulfilling a .exit request we only choose a routerinfo if it exists in
the routerlist, even when that routerinfo is ours.
- When getting a router by nickname we only return our own router information
if it is not going to be used for building a circuit.
We ensure this by removing the special treatment afforded our own router in
router_get_by_nickname(). This means the function will only return the
routerinfo of our own router if it is in the routerlist built from authority
info and has a unique nickname or is bound to a non-unique nickname.
There are some uses of router_get_by_nickname() where we are looking for the
router by name because of a configuration directive, specifically local
declaration of NodeFamilies and EntryNodes and other routers' declaration of
MyFamily. In these cases it is not at first clear if we need to continue
returning our own routerinfo even if our router is not listed and/or has a
non-unique nickname with the Unnamed flag.
The patch treats each of these cases as follows:
Other Routers' Declaration of MyFamily
This happens in routerlist_add_family(). If another router declares our router
in its family and our router has the Unnamed flag or is not in the routerlist
yet, should we take advantage of the fact that we know our own routerinfo to
add us in anyway? This patch says 'no, treat our own router just like any
other'. This is a safe choice because it ensures our client has the same view
of the network as other clients. We also have no good way of knowing if our
router is Named or not independently of the authorities, so we have to rely on
them in this.
Local declaration of NodeFamilies
Again, we have no way of knowing if the declaration 'NodeFamilies
Bob,Alice,Ringo' refers to our router Bob or the Named router Bob, so we have
to defer to the authorities and treat our own router like any other.
Local declaration of NodeFamilies
Again, same as above. There's also no good reason we would want our client to
choose it's own router as an entry guard if it does not meet the requirements
expected of any other router on the network.
In order to reduce the possibility of error, the patch also replaces two
instances where we were using router_get_by_nickname() with calls to
router_get_by_hexdigest() where the identity digest of the router
is available.
When picking bridges (or other nodes without a consensus entry (and
thus no bandwidth weights)) we shouldn't just trust the node's
descriptor. So far we believed anything between 0 and 10MB/s, where 0
would mean that a node doesn't get any use from use unless it is our
only one, and 10MB/s would be a quite siginficant weight. To make this
situation better, we now believe weights in the range from 20kB/s to
100kB/s. This should allow new bridges to get use more quickly, and
means that it will be harder for bridges to see almost all our traffic.
Bridges and other relays not included in the consensus don't
necessarily have a non-zero bandwidth capacity. If all our
configured bridges had a zero bw capacity we would warn the
user. Change that.
It's normal when bootstrapping to have a lot of different certs
missing, so we don't want missing certs to make us warn... unless
the certs we're missing are ones that we've tried to fetch a couple
of times and failed at.
May fix bug 1145.
router_add_to_routerlist() is supposed to be a nice minimal function
that only touches the routerlist structures, but it included a call to
dirserv_single_reachability_test().
We have a function that gets called _after_ adding descriptors
successfully: routerlist_descriptors_added. This patch moves the
responsibility for testing there.
Because the decision of whether to test or not depends on whether
there was an old routerinfo for this router or not, we have to first
detect whether we _will_ want to run the tests if the router is added.
We make this the job of
routers_update_status_from_consensus_networkstatus().
Finally, this patch makes the code notice if a router is going from
hibernating to non-hibernating, and if so causes a reachability test
to get launched.
what's happening here is that we're fetching certs for obsolete
authorities -- probably legacy signers in this case. but try to
remain general in the log message.
I'm adding this because I can never remember what stuff like 'rule 3'
means. That's the one where if somebody goes limp or taps out, the
fight is over, right?
