When sending the stream level SENDME, it is possible the cirucit was marked
for close or any other failures that can occur. These events can occur
naturally.
Fixes#40142
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
The function in charge of removing duplicate ORPorts from our configured ports
was skipping all non ORPorts port but only for the outer loop thus resulting
in comparing an ORPort with a non-ORPort which lead to problems.
For example, tor configured with the following would fail:
ORPort auto
DirPort auto
Both end up being the same configuration except that one is a OR listener and
one is a Dir listener. Thus because of the missing check in the inner loop,
they looked exactly the same and thus one is removed.
Fixes#40195
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
First, this commit moves the launch_dummy_circuit_as_needed() function into
relay_find_addr.c and renames it to relay_addr_learn_from_dirauth(). This is
an attempt to centralize anything relate with address discovery in the right
module.
Second, when building a descriptor and we fail to discover our address,
immediately launch a dummy circuit to an authority in an attempt to learn our
descriptor.
It is still only done every 20 minutes even though the descriptor build is
done every minute. We ought to avoid load on the authority and if we can't
learn in the first place our address from them, chances are more things are
wrong.
Related to #40071
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
Regularly, tor looks if its IP has changed. It does the entire auto discovery
process again. However, it is possible that it does not find anything.
Instead of thinking the IP changed to an unknown address, look at our cache
and see if that value has changed.
The reason for this is because if tor gets its address as a suggestion from a
directory authority, it is because the auto discovery failed and thus that
address should be consider for the IP change check.
Related to #40071
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
Tor now can learn its address from a NETINFO cell coming from an authority.
Thus, instead from launching a dummy descriptor fetch to learn the address
from the directory response (unauthenticated), we simply now launch a one-hop
testing circuit.
Related to #40071
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
This changes the behaviour of `tor --version` in such a way.
```console
src/app/tor --version
Tor version 0.4.5.1-alpha-dev (git-46ccde66a97d7985).
Tor is running on Linux with Libevent 2.1.12-stable, OpenSSL 1.1.1h, Zlib 1.2.11, Liblzma 5.2.4, Libzstd 1.4.5 and Glibc 2.31 as libc.
Tor compiled with GCC version 10.2.0
```
Fixes#32102
Commit c3a0f75796 added this feature for ORPort
that we ignore any port that is not the family of our default address when
parsing the port. So if port_parse_config() was called with an IPv4 default
address, all IPv6 address would be ignored.
That makes sense for ORPort since we call twice port_parse_config() for
0.0.0.0 and [::] but for the rest of the ports, it is not good since a
perfectly valid configuration can be:
SocksPort 9050
SocksPort [::1]:9050
Any non-ORPort only binds by default to an IPv4 except the ORPort that binds
to both IPv4 and IPv6 by default.
The fix here is to always parse all ports within port_parse_config() and then,
specifically for ORPort, remove the duplicates or superseding ones. The
warning is only emitted when a port supersedes another.
A unit tests is added to make sure SocksPort of different family always exists
together.
Fixes#40183
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
There were three separate places where we were hitting a sandbox Bug
warning before we actually exited.
Fixes#40094; bugfix on 0.3.1.1-alpha when %includes were introduced.
Typos found with codespell.
Please keep in mind that this should have impact on actual code
and must be carefully evaluated:
src/core/or/lttng_circuit.inc
- ctf_enum_value("CONTROLER", CIRCUIT_PURPOSE_CONTROLLER)
+ ctf_enum_value("CONTROLLER", CIRCUIT_PURPOSE_CONTROLLER)
We already did this, but we did it by accident, which is pretty
risky: if we hadn't, then our code would have treated extra data in
the inbuf as having been transmitted as TLS-authenticated data.
Closes ticket 40017; Found by opara.
