The conflicts are with the proposal 171 circuit isolation code, and
they're all trivial: they're just a matter of both branches adding
some unrelated code in the same places.
Conflicts:
src/or/circuituse.c
src/or/connection.c
Back when I added this logic in 20c0581a79, the rule was that whenever
a circuit finished building, we cleared its isolation info. I did that
so that we would still use the circuit even if all the streams that
had previously led us to tentatively set its isolation info had closed.
But there were problems with that approach: We could pretty easily get
into a case where S1 had led us to launch C1 and S2 had led us to
launch C2, but when C1 finished, we cleared its isolation and attached
S2 first. Since C2 was still marked in a way that made S1
unattachable to it, we'd then launch another circuit needlessly.
So instead, we try the following approach now: when a circuit is done
building, we try to attach streams to it. If it remains unused after
we try attaching streams, then we clear its isolation info, and try
again to attach streams.
Thanks to Sebastian for helping me figure this out.
This is mainly meant as a way to keep clients from accidentally
DOSing themselves by (e.g.) enabling IsolateDestAddr or
IsolateDestPort on a port that they use for HTTP.
Our old "do we need to launch a circuit for stream S" logic was,
more or less, that if we had a pending circuit that could handle S,
we didn't need to launch a new one.
But now that we have streams isolated from one another, we need
something stronger here: It's possible that some pending C can
handle either S1 or S2, but not both.
This patch reuses the existing isolation logic for a simple
solution: when we decide during circuit launching that some pending
C would satisfy stream S1, we "hypothetically" mark C as though S1
had been connected to it. Now if S2 is incompatible with S1, it
won't be something that can attach to C, and so we'll launch a new
stream.
When the circuit becomes OPEN for the first time (with no streams
attached to it), we reset the circuit's isolation status. I'm not
too sure about this part: I wanted some way to be sure that, if all
streams that would have used a circuit die before the circuit is
done, the circuit can still get used. But I worry that this
approach could also lead to us launching too many circuits. Careful
thought needed here.
This is the meat of proposal 171: we change circuit_is_acceptable()
to require that the connection is compatible with every connection
that has been linked to the circuit; we update circuit_is_better to
prefer attaching streams to circuits in the way that decreases the
circuits' usefulness the least; and we update link_apconn_to_circ()
to do the appropriate bookkeeping.
This adds a little code complexity: we need to remember for each
node whether it supports the right feature, and then check for each
connection whether it's exiting at such a node. We store this in a
flag in the edge_connection_t, and set that flag at link time.
Instead, use compare_tor_addr_to_node_policy everywhere.
One advantage of this is that compare_tor_addr_to_node_policy can
better distinguish 0.0.0.0 from "unknown", which caused a nasty bug
with microdesc users.
This lets us make a lot of other stuff const, allows the compiler to
generate (slightly) better code, and will make me get slightly fewer
patches from folks who stick mutable stuff into or_options_t.
const: because not every input is an output!
The conflicts were mainly caused by the routerinfo->node transition.
Conflicts:
src/or/circuitbuild.c
src/or/command.c
src/or/connection_edge.c
src/or/directory.c
src/or/dirserv.c
src/or/relay.c
src/or/rendservice.c
src/or/routerlist.c
This patch introduces a few new functions in router.c to produce a
more helpful description of a node than its nickame, and then tweaks
nearly all log messages taking a nickname as an argument to call these
functions instead.
There are a few cases where I left the old log messages alone: in
these cases, the nickname was that of an authority (whose nicknames
are useful and unique), or the message already included an identity
and/or an address. I might have missed a couple more too.
This is a fix for bug 3045.
Conflicts in various places, mainly node-related. Resolved them in
favor of HEAD, with copying of tor_mem* operations from bug3122_memcmp_022.
src/common/Makefile.am
src/or/circuitlist.c
src/or/connection_edge.c
src/or/directory.c
src/or/microdesc.c
src/or/networkstatus.c
src/or/router.c
src/or/routerlist.c
src/test/test_util.c
Conflicts throughout. All resolved in favor of taking HEAD and
adding tor_mem* or fast_mem* ops as appropriate.
src/common/Makefile.am
src/or/circuitbuild.c
src/or/directory.c
src/or/dirserv.c
src/or/dirvote.c
src/or/networkstatus.c
src/or/rendclient.c
src/or/rendservice.c
src/or/router.c
src/or/routerlist.c
src/or/routerparse.c
src/or/test.c
Here I looked at the results of the automated conversion and cleaned
them up as follows:
If there was a tor_memcmp or tor_memeq that was in fact "safe"[*] I
changed it to a fast_memcmp or fast_memeq.
Otherwise if there was a tor_memcmp that could turn into a
tor_memneq or tor_memeq, I converted it.
This wants close attention.
[*] I'm erring on the side of caution here, and leaving some things
as tor_memcmp that could in my opinion use the data-dependent
fast_memcmp variant.
Resolved conflicts in:
doc/tor.1.txt
src/or/circuitbuild.c
src/or/circuituse.c
src/or/connection_edge.c
src/or/connection_edge.h
src/or/directory.c
src/or/rendclient.c
src/or/routerlist.c
src/or/routerlist.h
These were mostly releated to the routerinfo_t->node_t conversion.
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.
