Since both the client and service will use that data structure to store the
descriptor decoded data, only the public keys are common to both.
Fixes#20572.
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
The "sig_len" fields was moved below the "end_sig_fields" in the trunnel
specification so when signing the cell content, the function generating such a
cell needed to be adjust.
Closes#20991
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
Previously, we had NumEntryGuards kind of hardwired to 1. Now we
have the code (but not the configuarability) to choose randomly from
among the first N primary guards that would work, where N defaults
to 1.
Part of 20831 support for making NumEntryGuards work again.
Since we already had a separate function for getting the universe of
possible guards, all we had to do was tweak it to handle very the
GS_TYPE_RESTRICTED case.
asn found while testing that this function can be reached with
GUARD_STATE_COMPLETE circuits; I believe this happens when
cannibalization occurs.
The added complexity of handling one more state made it reasonable
to turn the main logic here into a switch statement.
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()._
If a complete circuit C2 doesn't obey the restrictions of C1, then
C2 cannot block C1.
The patch here is a little big-ish, since we can no longer look
through all the complete circuits and all the waiting circuits on a
single pass: we have to find the best waiting circuit first.
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.
I had been asking myself, "hey, doesn't the new code need to look at
this "info" parameter? The old code did!" But it turns out that the
old code hasn't, since 05f7336624.
So instead of "support this!" the comment now says "we can remove
this!"
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.
