This could result in bizarre window values. Report and patch
contributed pseudymously. Fixes part of bug 6271. This bug was
introduced before the first Tor release, in svn commit r152.
(bug 6271, part a.)
This reverts commit c32ec9c425.
It turns out the two sides of the circuit don't actually stay in sync,
so it is perfectly normal for the circuit window on the exit relay to
grow to 2000+. We should fix that bug and then reconsider this patch.
I only check on circuits, not streams, since bloating your stream
window past the initial circuit window can't help you much.
Also, I compare to CIRCWINDOW_START_MAX so we don't have surprising
races if we lower CIRCWINDOW_START for an experiment.
With glibc 2.15 and clang 3.0, I get warnings from where we use the
strcpsn implementation in the header as strcspn(string, "="). This
is apparently because clang sees that part of the strcspn macro
expands to "="[2], and doesn't realize that that part of the macro
is only evaluated when "="[1] != 0.
The functions parse_{s,c}method_line() were using
tor_addr_port_lookup() which is capable of doing DNS lookups. DNS
lookups should not be necessary when parsing {C,S}METHOD lines.
The code that detected the source of a remapped address checked that
an address mapping's source was a given rewrite rule if addr_orig had
no .exit, and addr did have a .exit after processing that rule. But
addr_orig was formatted for logging: it was not the original address
at all, but rather was the address escaped for logging and possibly
replaced with "[scrubbed]".
This new logic will correctly set ADDRMAPSRC_NONE in the case when the
address starts life as a .exit address, so that AllowDotExit can work
again.
Fixes bug 6211; bugfix on 0.2.3.17-beta
It turns out this can happen. Even though there is no reason for
connections to be marked but reading, we leave them reading anyway,
so warning here is unwarranted. Let's turn that back on once we do
something sensible and disable reading when we mark. Bugfix for
6203 on Tor 0.2.3.17-beta.
Thanks to cypherpunks for pointing out the general stupidity of the
original code here.
