This patch removes an "if (chan)" that occurred at a place where
chan was definitely non-NULL. Having it there made some static
analysis tools conclude that we were up to shenanigans.
This resolves#9979.
Right now this accounts for about 1% of circuits over all, but if you
pick a guard that's running 0.2.3, it will be about 6% of the circuits
running through that guard.
Making sure that every circuit has at least one ntor link means that
we're getting plausibly good forward secrecy on every circuit.
This implements ticket 9777,
It's possible to set your ExitNodes to contains only exits that don't
have the Exit flag. If you do that, we'll decide that 0 of your exits
are working. Instead, in that case we should look at nodes which have
(or which might have) exit policies that don't reject everything.
Fix for bug 10543; bugfix on 0.2.4.10-alpha.
According to control spec, longname should not contain any spaces and is
consists only of identy_digest + nickname
added two functions:
* node_get_verbose_nickname_by_id()
* node_describe_longname_by_id()
My OSX laptop rightly gave a warning because of sticking strlen() into
an int, but once I took a closer look... it appears that the strlen()
was part of a needlessly verbose implementation for tor_strdup().
While I was there, I fixed the usage of tor_free() in test_hs.c: It
checks for NULL, and it zeros its argument. So instead of
if (foo) {
tor_free(foo);
foo = NULL;
}
we should just say
tor_free(foo);
If you want a slow shutdown, send SIGNAL SHUTDOWN.
(Why not just have the default be SIGNAL QUIT? Because this case
should only happen when an owning controller has crashed, and a
crashed controller won't be able to give the user any "tor is
shutting down" feedback, and so the user gets confused for a while.
See bug 10449 for more info)
Improvement on f308adf838, where we made the ntor
unit tests run everywhere... so long as a python curve25519 module
was installed. Now the unit tests don't require that module.
I'm doing this because:
* User doesn't mean you're running as root, and running as root
doesn't mean you've set User.
* It's possible that the user has done some other
capability-based hack to retain the necessary privileges.
