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.
This is an "ours" merge to avoid taking a version bump, and to
avoid replaying the post-0.2.7.6 history of "maint-0.2.7-redux" onto maint-0.2.8, which already included the relevant changes.
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.
