This patch doesn't cover every case; omitted cases are marked with
"XXXX prop271", as usual. It leaves both the old interface and the
new interface for guard status notification, since they don't
actually work in the same way: the new API wants to be told when a
circuit has failed or succeeded, whereas the old API wants to know
when a channel has failed or succeeded.
I ran into some trouble with directory guard stuff, since when we
pick the directory guard, we don't actually have a circuit to
associate it with. I solved that by allowing guard states to be
associated with directory connections, not just circuits.
Use the following coccinelle script to change uses of
smartlist_add(sl, tor_strdup(str)) to
smartlist_add_strdup(sl, string) (coccinelle script from nickm
via bug 20048):
@@
expression a;
expression b;
@@
- smartlist_add
+ smartlist_add_strdup
(a,
- tor_strdup(
b
- )
)
When we refactored purpose_needs_anonymity(), we made it so _all_
bridge requests required anonymity. But that missed the case
that we are allowed to ask a bridge for its own descriptor.
With this patch, we consider the resource, and allow "authority.z"
("your own descriptor, compressed") for a bridge's server descriptor
to be non-anonymous.
Fix for bug 20410; bug not in any released Tor.
I believe that this should never trigger, but if it does, it
suggests that there was a gap between is_sensitive_dir_purpose and
purpose_needs_anonymity that we need to fill. Related to 20077.
Previously, you needed to store the previous log severity in a local
variable, and it wasn't clear if you were allowed to call these
functions more than once.
The functions it warns about are:
assert, memcmp, strcat, strcpy, sprintf, malloc, free, realloc,
strdup, strndup, calloc.
Also, fix a few lingering instances of these in the code. Use other
conventions to indicate _intended_ use of assert and
malloc/realloc/etc.
This patch makes us retain the intermediate list of K=V entries for
the duration of computing our vote, and lets us use that list with
a new function in order to look up parameters before the consensus
is published.
We can't actually use this function yet because of #19011: our
existing code to do this doesn't actually work, and we'll need a new
consensus method to start using it.
Closes ticket #19012.
