Specifically, there are two cases: a) are we willing to start a new
circuit at a node not in your ExitNodes config option, and b) are we
willing to make use of a circuit that's already established but has an
unsuitable exit.
Now we discard all your circuits when you set ExitNodes, so the only
way you could end up with an exit circuit that ends at an unsuitable
place is if we explicitly ran out of exit nodes, StrictNodes was 0,
and we built this circuit to solve a stream that needs solving.
Fixes bug in dc322931, which would ignore the just-built circuit because
it has an unsuitable exit.
Before it would prepend your requested entrynodes to your list of guard
nodes, but feel free to use others after that. Now it chooses only
from your EntryNodes if any of those are available, and only falls back
to others if a) they're all down and b) StrictNodes is not set.
Also, now we refresh your entry guards from EntryNode at each consensus
fetch (rather than just at startup and then they slowly rot as the
network changes).
The goal here is to make users less likely to set StrictNodes, since
it's doing closer to what they expect it should be doing.
The new rule is: safe_str_X() means "this string is a piece of X
information; make it safe to log." safe_str() on its own means
"this string is a piece of who-knows-what; make it safe to log".
Some *_free functions threw asserts when passed NULL. Now all of them
accept NULL as input and perform no action when called that way.
This gains us consistence for our free functions, and allows some
code simplifications where an explicit null check is no longer necessary.
In C, the code "char x[10]; if (x) {...}" always takes the true branch of
the if statement. Coverity notices this now.
In some cases, we were testing arrays to make sure that an operation
we wanted to do would suceed. Those cases are now always-true.
In some cases, we were testing arrays to see if something was _set_.
Those caes are now tests for strlen(s), or tests for
!tor_mem_is_zero(d,len).
This seems to be happening to me a lot on a garbage DSL line.
We may need to come up with 2 threshholds: a high short onehop
count and a lower longer count.
Don't count one-hop circuits when we're estimating how long it
takes circuits to build on average. Otherwise we'll set our circuit
build timeout lower than we should. Bugfix on 0.2.2.2-alpha.
A) We were considering a circuit had timed out in the special cases
where we close rendezvous circuits because the final rendezvous
circuit couldn't be built in time.
B) We were looking at the wrong timestamp_created when considering
a timeout.
We want it to be under our control so it doesn't mess
up initialization. This is likely the cause for
the bug the previous assert-adding commit (09a75ad) was
trying to address.
