This is an important thing I hadn't considered when writing prop271:
sometimes you have to restrict what guard you use for a particular
circuit. Most frequently, that would be because you plan to use a
certain node as your exit, and so you can't choose that for your
guard.
This change means that the upgrade-waiting-circuits algorithm needs
a slight tweak too: circuit A cannot block circuit B from upgrading
if circuit B needs to follow a restriction that circuit A does not
follow.
George pointed out that (-1,0,1) for (never usable, maybe usable
later, usable right now) was a pretty rotten convention that made
the code harder to read.
This includes:
* making bridge_info_t exposed but opaque
* allowing guards where we don't know an identity
* making it possible to learn the identity of a guard
* creating a guard that lacks a node_t
* remembering a guard's address and port.
* Looking up a guard by address and port.
* Only enforcing the rule that we need a live consensus to update
the "listed" status for guards when we are not using bridges.
Currently, this code doesn't actually have the contexts behave
differently, (except for the legacy context), but it does switch
back and forth between them nicely.
Some of these will get torrc options to override them too; this
is just the mechanical conversion.
Also, add documentation for a couple of undocumented (but now used)
parameters.
To do this, it makes sense to treat legacy guards as a separate
guard_selection_t *, and handle them separately. This also means we
add support here for having multiple guard selections.
Note that we don't persist pathbias information yet; that will take
some refactoring.
This patch doesn't cover every case; omitted cases are marked with
"XXXX prop271", as usual. It leaves both the old interface and the
new interface for guard status notification, since they don't
actually work in the same way: the new API wants to be told when a
circuit has failed or succeeded, whereas the old API wants to know
when a channel has failed or succeeded.
I ran into some trouble with directory guard stuff, since when we
pick the directory guard, we don't actually have a circuit to
associate it with. I solved that by allowing guard states to be
associated with directory connections, not just circuits.
I expect we'll be ripping this out somewhere in 0.3.0, but let's
keep it around for a little while in case it turns out to be the
only way to avert disaster?
This code handles:
* Maintaining the sampled set, the filtered set, and the
usable_filtered set.
* Maintaining the confirmed and primary guard lists.
* Picking guards for circuits, and updating guard state when
circuit state changes.
Additionally, I've done code structure movement: even more constants
and structures from entrynodes.c have become ENTRYNODES_PRIVATE
fields of entrynodes.h.
I've also included a bunch of documentation and a bunch of unit
tests. Coverage on the new code is pretty high.
I've noted important things to resolve before this branch is done
with the /XXXX.*prop271/ regex.
This patch is just:
* Code movement
* Adding headers here and there as needed
* Adding a bridges_free_all() with a call to it.
It breaks compilation, since the bridge code needed to make exactly
2 calls into entrynodes.c internals. I'll fix those in the next
commit.
The encoding code is very straightforward. The decoding code is a
bit tricky, but clean-ish. The sampling code is untested and
probably needs more work.
This field indicates if the service is a Single Onion Service if present in
the descriptor.
Closes#19642
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
The test was broken and skipped because the hardcoded cross certificate didn't
include the dynamically generated signing key generated by the test. The only
way we could have fixed that is extracting the signing key from the hardcoded
string and put it in the descriptor object or dynamically generate the cross
certificate.
In the end, all this was kind of pointless as we already test the decoding of
multiple introduction points elsewhere and we don't gain anything with that
specific test thus the removal.
Fixes#20570
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
