We switched these to be "if (1) " a while back, so we could keep
the indentation and avoid merge conflicts. But it's nice to clean
up from time to time.
Previously we were marking directory guards up in
..._process_inbuf(), but that's wrong: we call that function on
close as well as on success. Instead, we're marking the dirguard up
only after we parse the HTTP headers. Closes 20974.
Here we handle most (all?) of the remaining tasks, and fix some
bugs, in the prop271 bridge implementation.
* We record bridge identities as we learn them.
* We only call deprecated functions from bridges.c when the
deprecated guard algorithm is in use.
* We update any_bridge_descriptors_known() and
num_bridges_usable() to work correctly with the new backend
code. (Previously, they called into the guard selection logic.
* We update bridge directory fetches to work with the new
guard code.
* We remove some erroneous assertions where we assumed that we'd
never load a guard that wasn't for the current selection.
Also, we fix a couple of typos.
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.
This patch is just:
* Code movement
* Adding headers here and there as needed
* Adding a bridges_free_all() with a call to it.
It breaks compilation, since the bridge code needed to make exactly
2 calls into entrynodes.c internals. I'll fix those in the next
commit.
Because as Teor puts it: "[Resetting on 503] is exactly what we
don't want when relays are busy - imagine clients doing an automatic
reset every time they DoS a relay..."
Fixes bug 20593.
As of #19899, we decided to allow any relay understanding the onion service
version 3 protocol to be able to use it. The service and client will be the
one controlled by a consensus parameter (different one for both of them) but
if you are a relay and you can understand a protocol, basically you should use
the feature.
Closes#19899
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
It's only safe to remove the failure limit (per 20536) if we are in
fact waiting a bit longer each time we try to download.
Fixes bug 20534; bugfix on 0.2.9.1-alpha.
This parameter controls if onion services version 3 (first version of prop224)
is enabled or not. If disabled, the tor daemon will not support the protocol
for all components such as relay, directory, service and client. If the
parameter is not found, it's enabled by default.
Closes#19899
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
Signed-off-by: George Kadianakis <desnacked@riseup.net>
In order to implement proposal 224, we need the data structure rend_data_t to
be able to accomodate versionning that is the current version of hidden
service (2) and the new version (3) and future version.
For that, we implement a series of accessors and a downcast function to get
the v2 data structure. rend_data_t becomes a top level generic place holder.
The entire rend_data_t API has been moved to hs_common.{c|h} in order to
seperate code that is shared from between HS versions and unshared code (in
rendcommon.c).
Closes#19024
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
Signed-off-by: George Kadianakis <desnacked@riseup.net>
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.
We removed that feature in 0.2.4.2-alpha, but some comments seem to
have lingered.
I didn't add a changes/ file since this is just internal code cleanup.
