Now we believe it to be the case that we never build a circuit for our
stream that has an unsuitable exit, so we'll never need to use such
a circuit. The risk is that we have some code that builds the circuit,
but now we refuse to use it, meaning we just build a bazillion circuits
and ignore them all.
This looked at first like another fun way around our node selection
logic: if we had introduction circuits, and we wound up building too
many, we would turn extras into general-purpose circuits. But when we
did so, we wouldn't necessarily check whether the general-purpose
circuits conformed to our node constraints. For example, the last
node could totally be in ExcludedExitNodes and we wouldn't have cared...
...except that the circuit should already be internal, so it won't get user
streams attached to it, so the transition should generally be allowed.
Add an assert to make sure we're right about this, and have it not
check whether ExitNodes is set, since that's irrelevant to internal
circuits.
IOW, if we were using TrackExitHosts, and we added an excluded node or
removed a node from exitnodes, we wouldn't actually remove the mapping
that points us at the new node.
Also, note with an XXX022 comment a place that I think we are looking
at the wrong string.
The routerset_equal function explicitly handles NULL inputs, so
there's no need to check inputs for NULL before calling it.
Also fix a bug in routerset_equal where a non-NULL routerset with no
entries didn't get counted as equal to a NULL routerset. This was
untriggerable, I think, but potentially annoying down the road.
ExcludeExitNodes foo now means that foo.exit doesn't work. If
StrictNodes is set, then ExcludeNodes foo also overrides foo.exit.
foo.exit , however, still works even if foo is not listed in ExitNodes.
This once maybe made sense when ExitNodes meant "Here are 3 exits;
use them all", but now it more typically means "Here are 3
countries; exit from there." Using non-Fast/Stable exits created a
potential partitioning opportunity and an annoying stability
problem.
(Don't worry about the case where all of our ExitNodes are non-Fast
or non-Stable: we handle that later in the function by retrying with
need_capacity and need_uptime set to 0.)
If we're picking a random directory node, never pick an excluded one.
But if we've chosen a specific one (or all), allow it unless strictnodes
is set (in which case warn so the user knows it's their fault).
When warning that we won't connect to a strictly excluded node,
log what it was we were trying to do at that node.
When ExcludeNodes is set but StrictNodes is not set, we only use
non-excluded nodes if we can, but fall back to using excluded nodes
if none of those nodes is usable.
This is a tweak to the bug2917 fix. Basically, if we want to simulate
a signal arriving in the controller, we shouldn't have to pretend that
we're Libevent, or depend on how Tor sets up its Libevent callbacks.
The last entry of the *Maxima values in the state file was inflated by a
factor of NUM_SECS_ROLLING_MEASURE (currently 10). This could lead to
a wrong maximum value propagating through the state file history.
