This should avoid most intermittent test failures on developer and CI machines,
but there could (and probably should) be a more elegant solution.
Also, this test was testing that the IP was created and its expiration time was
set to a time greater than or equal to `now+INTRO_POINT_LIFETIME_MIN_SECONDS+5`:
/* Time to expire MUST also be in that range. We add 5 seconds because
* there could be a gap between setting now and the time taken in
* service_intro_point_new. On ARM, it can be surprisingly slow... */
tt_u64_op(ip->time_to_expire, OP_GE,
now + INTRO_POINT_LIFETIME_MIN_SECONDS + 5);
However, this appears to be a typo, since, according to the comment above it,
adding five seconds was done because the IP creation can be slow on some
systems. But the five seconds is added to the *minimum* time we're comparing
against, and so it actually functions to make this test *more* likely to fail on
slower systems. (It should either subtract five seconds, or instead add it to
time_to_expire.)
* FIXES#25450: https://bugs.torproject.org/25450
These were meant to demonstrate old behavior, or old rust behavior.
One of them _should_ work in Rust, but won't because of
implementation details. We'll fix that up later.
The C code and the rust code had different separate integer overflow
bugs here. That suggests that we're better off just forbidding this
pathological case.
Also, add tests for expected behavior on receiving a bad protocol
list in a consensus.
Fixes another part of 25249.
I've refactored these to be a separate function, to avoid tricky
merge conflicts.
Some of these are disabled with "XXXX" comments; they should get
fixed moving forward.
This one can only be exploited if you can generate a correctly
signed consensus, so it's not as bad as 25074.
Fixes bug 25251; also tracked as TROVE-2018-004.
In some cases we had checked for it, but in others we had not. One
of these cases could have been used to remotely cause
denial-of-service against directory authorities while they attempted
to vote.
Fixes TROVE-2018-001.
(Note that two entries are marked OMIT: they are bugfixes on #24902
that we're backporting along with the #24902 code. I think that
means that we don't backport their changelog entries, since they are
bugfixes on a later version of Tor?)
since all it does is produce false positives
this commit should get merged into 0.2.9 and 0.3.0 *and* 0.3.1, even
though the code in the previous commit is already present in 0.3.1. sorry
for the mess.
[Cherry-picked]
