Right now, this has been done at a high level by confparse.c, but it
makes more sense to lower it.
This API is radically un-typesafe as it stands; we'll be wrapping it
in a safer API as we do #30914 and lower the struct manipulation
code as well.
Closes ticket 30864.
If the signature data was removed, but the keyword was kept, this could
result in an unparseable extra info file.
Fixes bug 30958; bugfix on 0.2.7.2-alpha.
Always publish bridge pluggable transport information in the extra info
descriptor, even if ExtraInfoStatistics is 0. This information is
needed by BridgeDB.
Fixes bug 30956; bugfix on 0.4.1.1-alpha.
This will effectively also deny any bridge to be used as a single hop to the
introduction point since bridge do not authenticate like clients.
Fixes#24963
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
When we consider all circuits in "waiting for guard" state to be promoted to
an "open" state, we were considering all circuits, even the one marked for
close.
This ultiamtely triggers a "circuit_has_opened()" called on the circuit that
is marked for close which then leads to possible undesirable behaviors within
a subsystem.
For instance, the HS subsystem would be unable to find the authentication key
of the introduction point circuit leading to a BUG() warning and a duplicate
mark for close on the circuit.
This commit also adds a unit test to make sure we never select marked for
close circuits when upgrading its guard state from waiting for guard to open.
Fixes#30871
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
When we consider all circuits in "waiting for guard" state to be promoted to
an "open" state, we were considering all circuits, even the one marked for
close.
This ultiamtely triggers a "circuit_has_opened()" called on the circuit that
is marked for close which then leads to possible undesirable behaviors within
a subsystem.
For instance, the HS subsystem would be unable to find the authentication key
of the introduction point circuit leading to a BUG() warning and a duplicate
mark for close on the circuit.
This commit also adds a unit test to make sure we never select marked for
close circuits when upgrading its guard state from waiting for guard to open.
Fixes#30871
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
When we consider all circuits in "waiting for guard" state to be promoted to
an "open" state, we were considering all circuits, even the one marked for
close.
This ultiamtely triggers a "circuit_has_opened()" called on the circuit that
is marked for close which then leads to possible undesirable behaviors within
a subsystem.
For instance, the HS subsystem would be unable to find the authentication key
of the introduction point circuit leading to a BUG() warning and a duplicate
mark for close on the circuit.
This commit also adds a unit test to make sure we never select marked for
close circuits when upgrading its guard state from waiting for guard to open.
Fixes#30871
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
