We found this in #40076, after we started using buf_move_all() in
more places. Fixes bug #40076; bugfix on 0.3.3.1-alpha. As far as
I know, the crash only affects master, but I think this warrants a
backport, "just in case".
This patch lifts the `tor_tls_cert_matches_key()` tests out of the
OpenSSL specific TLS test suite and moves it into the generic TLS test
suite that is executed for both OpenSSL and NSS.
This patch is largely a code movement, but we had to rewrite parts of
the test to avoid using OpenSSL specific data-types (such as `X509 *`)
and replace it with the generic Tor abstraction type
(`tor_x509_cert_impl_t *`).
This patch is part of the fix for TROVE-2020-001.
See: https://bugs.torproject.org/33119
Add an inline helper function that indicates if the cached object contains a
decrypted descriptor or not.
The descriptor object is NULL if tor is unable to decrypt it (lacking client
authorization) and some actions need to be done only when we have a decrypted
object.
This improves code semantic.
Fixes#33458
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that. Clang recently added
the same thing.
GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments. Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))". Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.
A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.
This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:
#!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;
(In order to avoid conflicts, I'm applying this script separately to
each maint branch. This is the 0.4.3 version.)
GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that. Clang recently added
the same thing.
GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments. Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))". Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.
A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.
This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:
#!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;
(In order to avoid conflicts, I'm applying this script separately to
each maint branch. This is the 0.4.2 version.)
GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that. Clang recently added
the same thing.
GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments. Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))". Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.
A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.
This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:
#!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;
The client auth protocol allows attacker-controlled x25519 private keys being
passed around, which allows an attacker to potentially trigger the all-zeroes
assert for client_auth_sk in hs_descriptor.c:decrypt_descriptor_cookie().
We fixed that by making sure that an all-zeroes client auth key will not be
used.
There are no guidelines for validating x25519 private keys, and the assert was
there as a sanity check for code flow issues (we don't want to enter that
function with an unitialized key if client auth is being used). To avoid such
crashes in the future, we also changed the assert to a BUG-and-err.
This change broke torsocks that by default is expecting an IPv4 for hostname
resolution because it can't ask tor for a specific IP version with the SOCKS5
extension.
PreferIPv6 made it that sometimes the IPv6 could be returned to torsocks that
was expecting an IPv4.
Torsocks is probably a very unique case because the runtime flow is that it
hijacks DNS resolution (ex: getaddrinfo()), gets an IP and then sends it back
for the connect() to happen.
The libc has DNS resolution functions that allows the caller to request a
specific INET family but torsocks can't tell tor to resolve the hostname only
to an IPv4 or IPv6 and thus by default fallsback to IPv4.
Reverting this change into 0.4.3.x series but we'll keep it in the 0.4.4.x
series in the hope that we add this SOCKS5 extension to tor for DNS resolution
and then change torsocks to use that.
Fixes#33804
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
For example, "TOR_SKIP_TESTCASES=crypto/.. ./src/test/test" will run
the tests and suppress all the "crypto/" tests. You could get the
same effect by running "./src/test/test :crypto/..", but that can be
harder to arrange from CI.
Part of a fix/workaround for 33643.
