This patch resets `buf` in test_util_fgets_eagain() after each succesful
ivocation to avoid stray artifacts left in the buffer by erroneous
tor_fgets() calls.
This patch adds the `tor_fgets()` function to our compatibility layer.
`tor_fgets()` adds an additional check for whether the error-bit have
been enabled for the given file stream, if that is the case and `errno`
is set to `EAGAIN` we make sure that we always return NULL.
Unfortunately `fgets(3)` behaves differently on different versions of
the C library.
See: https://bugs.torproject.org/21416
See: https://bugs.torproject.org/20988
In that chutney test, the bridge client is configured to connect to
the same bridge at 127.0.0.1:5003 _and_ at [::1]:5003, with no
change in transports.
That meant, I think, that the descriptor is only assigned to the
first bridge when it arrives, and never the second.
- Make sure we check at least two guards for descriptor before making
circuits. We typically use the first primary guard for circuits, but
it can also happen that we use the second primary guard (e.g. if we
pick our first primary guard as an exit), so we should make sure we
have descriptors for both of them.
- Remove BUG() from the guard_has_descriptor() check since we now know
that this can happen in rare but legitimate situations as well, and we
should just move to the next guard in that case.
(But use bash if it's available.)
This is a workaround until we remove bash-specific code in 19699.
Fixes bug 21581; bugfix on 21562, not in any released version of tor.
Previously I'd made a bad assumption in the implementation of
prop271 in 0.3.0.1-alpha: I'd assumed that there couldn't be two
guards with the same identity. That's true for non-bridges, but in
the bridge case, we allow two bridges to have the same ID if they
have different addr:port combinations -- in order to have the same
bridge ID running multiple PTs.
Fortunately, this assumption wasn't deeply ingrained: we stop
enforcing the "one guard per ID" rule in the bridge case, and
instead enforce "one guard per <id,addr,port>".
We also needed to tweak our implementation of
get_bridge_info_for_guard, since it made the same incorrect
assumption.
Fixes bug 21027; bugfix on 0.3.0.1-alpha.
This feature makes it possible to turn off memory sentinels (like
those used for safety in buffers.c and memarea.c) when fuzzing, so
that we can catch bugs that they would otherwise prevent.
Since 0.2.4.11-alpha (in 0196647970) we've tried to randomize
the start time to up to some time in the past. But unfortunately we
allowed the start time to be in the future as well, which isn't
really legit.
The new behavior lets the start time be be up to
MAX(cert_lifetime-2days, 0) in the past, but never in the future.
Fixes bug 21420; bugfix on 0.2.4.11-alpha.
Teor thinks that this connection_dirserv_add_dir_bytes_to_outbuf()
might be the problem, if the "remaining" calculation underflows. So
I'm adding a couple of checks there, and improving the casts.
When encoding a legacy ESTABLISH_INTRO cell, we were using the sizeof() on a
pointer instead of using the real size of the destination buffer leading to an
overflow passing an enormous value to the signing digest function.
Fortunately, that value was only used to make sure the destination buffer
length was big enough for the key size and in this case it always was because
of the overflow.
Fixes#21553
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
strto* and _atoi64 accept +, -, and various whitespace before numeric
characters. And permitted whitespace is different between POSIX and Windows.
Fixes bug 21507 and part of 21508; bugfix on 0.0.8pre1.
This patch makes us store the number of sent and received RELAY_DATA
cells used for directory connections. We log the numbers after we have
received an EOF in connection_dir_client_reached_eof() from the
directory server.
Instead of returning 404 error code, this led to a NULL pointer being used and
thus a crash of tor.
Fixes#21471
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
Fixes bug 20894; bugfix on 0.2.0.16-alpha.
We already applied a workaround for this as 20834, so no need to
freak out (unless you didn't apply 20384 yet).
