Remove a fallback that changed its fingerprint after it was listed
This happened after to a software update:
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-June/009473.html
Remove a fallback that changed IPv4 address
Remove two fallbacks that were slow to deliver consensuses,
we can't guarantee they'll be fast in future.
Blacklist all these fallbacks until operators confirm they're stable.
Previously, we used !directory_fetches_from_authorities() to predict
that we would tunnel connections. But the rules have changed
somewhat over the course of 0.2.8
There was a > that should have been an ==, and a missing !. These
together prevented us from issuing a warning in the case that a
nickname matched an Unnamed node only.
Fixes bug 19203; bugfix on 0.2.3.1-alpha.
I introduced this bug when I moved signing_key_cert into
signed_descriptor_t. Bug not in any released Tor. Fixes bug 19175, and
another case of 19128.
Just like signed_descriptor_from_routerinfo(), routerlist_reparse_old()
copies the fields from one signed_descriptor_t to another, and then
clears the fields from the original that would have been double-freed by
freeing the original. But when I fixed the s_d_f_r() bug [#19128] in
50cbf22099, I missed the fact that the code was duplicated in
r_p_o().
Duplicated code strikes again!
For a longer-term solution here, I am not only adding the missing fix to
r_p_o(): I am also extracting the duplicated code into a new function.
Many thanks to toralf for patiently sending me stack traces until
one made sense.
Now that the field exists in signed_descriptor_t, we need to make
sure we free it when we free a signed_descriptor_t, and we need to
make sure that we don't free it when we convert a routerinfo_t to a
signed_descriptor_t.
But not in any released Tor. I found this while working on #19128.
One problem: I don't see how this could cause 19128.
With the fix for #17150, I added a duplicate certificate here. Here
I remove the original location in 0.2.8. (I wouldn't want to do
that in 027, due to the amount of authority-voting-related code
drift.)
Closes 19073.
This API change makes it so that routerinfo_incompatible...() no
longer takes a routerinfo_t, so that it's obvious that it should
only look at fields from the signed_descriptor_t.
This change should prevent a recurrence of #17150.
We need this field to be in signed_descriptor_t so that
routerinfo_incompatible_with_extrainfo can work correctly (#17150).
But I don't want to move it completely in this patch, since a great
deal of the code that messes with it has been in flux since 0.2.7,
when this ticket was opened. I should open another ticket about
removing the field from routerinfo_t and extrainfo_t later on.
This patch fixes no actual behavior.
The routerinfo we pass to routerinfo_incompatible_with_extrainfo is
the latest routerinfo for the relay. The signed_descriptor_t, on
the other hand, is the signed_descriptor_t that corresponds to the
extrainfo. That means we should be checking the digest256 match
with that signed_descriptor_t, not with the routerinfo.
Fixes bug 17150 (and 19017); bugfix on 0.2.7.2-alpha.
In dirserv_compute_performance_thresholds, we allocate arrays based
on the length of 'routers', a list of routerinfo_t, but loop over
the nodelist. The 'routers' list may be shorter when relays were
filtered by routers_make_ed_keys_unique, leading to an out-of-bounds
write on directory authorities.
This bug was originally introduced in 26e89742, but it doesn't look
possible to trigger until routers_make_ed_keys_unique was introduced
in 13a31e72.
Fixes bug 19032; bugfix on tor 0.2.8.2-alpha.
Previously, we were using the generic schedule for some downloads,
and the consensus schedule for others.
Resolves ticket 18816; fix on fddb814fe in 0.2.4.13-alpha.
we should avoid launching a consensus fetch if we don't want one,
but if we do end up with an extra one, we should let the other checks
take care of it.
We'll back off from the request in connection_ap_handshake_attach_circuit,
or cancel it in connection_dir_close_consensus_fetches, and those are the
only places we need to check.
