When I merged the fix for #7351, and implemented proposal 214 (4-byte
circuit IDs), I forgot to add a changes file. Later, we never noticed
that it didn't have one.
Resolves ticket #11555. Thanks to cypherpunks for noticing this was
missing.
This is a cherry-pick of 75e10f58a9 into
the master branch.
If we can't detect the physical memory, the new default is 8 GB on
64-bit architectures, and 1 GB on 32-bit architectures.
If we *can* detect the physical memory, the new default is
CLAMP(256 MB, phys_mem * 0.75, MAX_DFLT)
where MAX_DFLT is 8 GB on 64-bit architectures and 2 GB on 32-bit
architectures.
You can still override the default by hand. The logic here is simply
trying to choose a lower default value on systems with less than 12 GB
of physical RAM.
Use a per-channel ratelim_t to control the rate at which we report
failures for each channel.
Explain why I picked N=32.
Never return a zero circID.
Thanks to Andrea and to cypherpunks.
The memarea_strndup() function would have hit undefined behavior by
creating an 'end' pointer off the end of a string if it had ever been
given an 'n' argument bigger than the length of the memory ares that
it's scanning. Fortunately, we never did that except in the unit
tests. But it's not a safe behavior to leave lying around.
If we had an address of the form "1.2.3.4" and we tried to pass it to
tor_inet_pton with AF_INET6, it was possible for our 'eow' pointer to
briefly move backwards to the point before the start of the string,
before we moved it right back to the start of the string. C doesn't
allow that, and though we haven't yet hit a compiler that decided to
nuke us in response, it's best to fix.
So, be more explicit about requiring there to be a : before any IPv4
address part of the IPv6 address. We would have rejected addresses
without a : for not being IPv6 later on anyway.
Instead of taking the length of a buffer, we were taking the length of
a pointer, so that our debugging log would cover only the first
sizeof(void*) bytes of the client nonce.
scan-build recognizes that in theory there could be a numeric overflow
here.
This can't numeric overflow can't trigger IRL, since in order to fill a
hash table with more than P=402653189 buckets with a reasonable load
factor of 0.5, we'd first have P/2 malloced objects to put in it--- and
each of those would have to take take at least sizeof(void*) worth of
malloc overhead plus sizeof(void*) content, which would run you out of
address space anyway on a 32-bit system.
