Failure to do this caused an assertion failure with #22246 . This
assertion failure can be triggered remotely, so we're tracking it as
medium-severity TROVE-2017-002.
We hadn't needed this before, because most getpid() callers on Linux
were looking at the vDSO version of getpid(). I don't know why at
least one version of OpenSSL seems to be ignoring the vDSO, but this
change should fix it.
Fixes bug 21943; bugfix on 0.2.5.1-alpha when the sandbox was
introduced.
The GETINFO extra-info/digest/<digest> broke in commit 568dc27a19 that
refactored the base16_decode() API to return the decoded length.
Unfortunately, that if() condition should have checked for the correct length
instead of an error which broke the command in tor-0.2.9.1-alpha.
Fixes#22034
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
When we "fixed" #18280 in 4e4a7d2b0c
in 0291 it appears that we introduced a bug: The base32_encode
function can read off the end of the input buffer, if the input
buffer size modulo 5 is not equal to 0 or 3.
This is not completely horrible, for two reasons:
* The extra bits that are read are never actually used: so this
is only a crash when asan is enabled, in the worst case. Not a
data leak.
* The input sizes passed to base32_encode are only ever multiples
of 5. They are all either DIGEST_LEN (20), REND_SERVICE_ID_LEN
(10), sizeof(rand_bytes) in addressmap.c (10), or an input in
crypto.c that is forced to a multiple of 5.
So this bug can't actually trigger in today's Tor.
Closes bug 21894; bugfix on 0.2.9.1-alpha.
In order to avoid src/or/hs_service.o to contain no symbols and thus making
clang throw a warning, the functions are now exposed not just to unit tests.
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
When calculating max sampled size, Tor would only count the number of
bridges in torrc, without considering that our state file might already
have sampled bridges in it. This caused problems when people swap
bridges, since the following error would trigger:
[warn] Not expanding the guard sample any further; just hit the
maximum sample threshold of 1
The bridges+ipv6-min integration test has a client with bridges:
Bridge 127.0.0.1:5003
Bridge [::1]:5003
which got stuck in guard_selection_have_enough_dir_info_to_build_circuits()
because it couldn't find the descriptor of both bridges.
Specifically, the guard_has_descriptor() function could not find the
node_t of the [::1] bridge, because the [::1] bridge had no identity
digest assigned to it.
After further examination, it seems that during fetching the descriptor
for our bridges, we used the CERTS cell to fill the identity digest of
127.0.0.1:5003 properly. However, when we received a CERTS cell from
[::1]:5003 we actually ignored its identity digest because the
learned_router_identity() function was using
get_configured_bridge_by_addr_port_digest() which was returning the
127.0.0.1 bridge instead of the [::1] bridge (because it prioritizes
digest matching over addrport matching).
The fix replaces get_configured_bridge_by_addr_port_digest() with the
recent get_configured_bridge_by_exact_addr_port_digest() function. It
also relaxes the constraints of the
get_configured_bridge_by_exact_addr_port_digest() function by making it
return bridges whose identity digest is not yet known.
By using the _exact_() function, learned_router_identity() actually
fills in the identity digest of the [::1] bridge, which then allows
guard_has_descriptor() to find the right node_t and verify that the
descriptor is there.
FWIW, in the bridges+ipv6-min test both 127.0.0.1 and [::1] bridges
correspond to the same node_t, which I guess makes sense given that it's
actually the same underlying bridge.
