If we get a write error on a SOCKS connection, we can't send a
SOCKS reply, now can we?
This bug has been here since 36baf7219, where we added the "hey, I'm
closing an AP connection but I haven't finished the socks
handshake!" message. It's bug 8427.
Also, don't call the exit node 'reject *' unless our decision to pick
that node was based on a non-summarized version of that node's exit
policy.
rransom and arma came up with the ideas for this fix.
Fix for 7582; the summary-related part is a bugfix on 0.2.3.2-alpha.
When we're hibernating, the main reqason we can't bootstrap will
always be that we're hibernating: reporting anything else at severity
WARN is pointless.
Fixes part of 7302.
In 81d69f4c2d (0.2.21-alpha) we added a compile-time check for
a (totally broken) signed size_t. In 0e597471af (not yet released)
I switched to a better configure-time check, which stored its output
in a different variable. I didn't change the code which looked at
the output, however.
This bug is not in any released version of Tor, and would not affect
anybody with a working Tor.
Inspired by #8042.
As far as I know, OpenVMS is the only place you're likely to hit an
unsigned time_t these days, and Tor's VMS support
is... lacking. Still worth letting people know about it, though.
This time, I'm checking whether our calculated offset matches our
real offset, in each case, as we go along. I don't think this is
the bug, but it can't hurt to check.
This should have been 2 bytes all along, since version numbers can
be 16 bits long. This isn't a live bug, since the call to
is_or_protocol_version_known in channel_tls_process_versions_cell
will reject any version number not in the range 1..4. Still, let's
fix this before we accidentally start supporting version 256.
Reported pseudonymously. Fixes bug 8062; bugfix on 0.2.0.10-alpha --
specifically, on commit 6fcda529, where during development I
increased the width of a version to 16 bits without changing the
type of link_proto.
Our ++ should have been += 2. This means that we'd accept version
numbers even when they started at an odd position.
This bug should be harmless in practice for so long as every version
number we allow begins with a 0 byte, but if we ever have a version
number starting with 1, 2, 3, or 4, there will be trouble here.
Fix for bug 8059, reported pseudonymously. Bugfix on 0.2.0.10-alpha
-- specifically, commit 6fcda529, where during development I
increased the width of a version to 16 bits without changing the
loop step.
I have no idea whether b0rken clients will DoS the network if the v2
authorities all turn this on or not. It's experimental. See #6783 for
a description of how to test it more or less safely, and please be
careful!
Now that circid_t is 4 bytes long, the default integer promotions will
leave it alone when sizeof(int) == 4, which will leave us formatting an
unsigned as an int. That's technically undefined behavior.
Fixes bug 8447 on bfffc1f0fc. Bug not
in any released Tor.
Now the manpages no longer refer to tsocks or tsocks.conf, and we no
longer have or ship a tor-tsocks.conf. The only remaining instances
of "tsocks" in our repository are old ChangeLog and ReleaseNotes
entries, and the torify script saying that it doesn't support tsocks.
Fixes bug 8290.
In a number of places, we decrement timestamp_dirty by
MaxCircuitDirtiness in order to mark a stream as "unusable for any
new connections.
This pattern sucks for a few reasons:
* It is nonobvious.
* It is error-prone: decrementing 0 can be a bad choice indeed.
* It really wants to have a function.
It can also introduce bugs if the system time jumps backwards, or if
MaxCircuitDirtiness is increased.
So in this patch, I add an unusable_for_new_conns flag to
origin_circuit_t, make it get checked everywhere it should (I looked
for things that tested timestamp_dirty), and add a new function to
frob it.
For now, the new function does still frob timestamp_dirty (after
checking for underflow and whatnot), in case I missed any cases that
should be checking unusable_for_new_conns.
Fixes bug 6174. We first used this pattern in 516ef41ac1,
which I think was in 0.0.2pre26 (but it could have been 0.0.2pre27).
