Rely on onion_populate_cpath to check that we're only using
TAP for the rare hidden service cases.
Check and log if handshakes only support TAP when they should support
ntor.
Only some very ancient distributions don't ship with Libevent 2 anymore,
even the oldest supported Ubuntu LTS version has it. This allows us to
get rid of a lot of compat code.
This commit adds the commit(s) line in the vote as well as the SR values. It
also has the mechanism to add the majority SRVs in the consensus.
Signed-off-by: George Kadianakis <desnacked@riseup.net>
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
From 0.2.7.2-alpha onwards, Exits would reject all the IP addresses
they knew about in their exit policy. But this may have disclosed
addresses that were otherwise unlisted.
Now, only advertised addresses are rejected by default by
ExitPolicyRejectPrivate. All known addresses are only rejected when
ExitPolicyRejectLocalInterfaces is explicitly set to 1.
base16_decodes() now returns the number of decoded bytes. It's interface
changes from returning a "int" to a "ssize_t". Every callsite now checks the
returned value.
Fixes#14013
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
This is a big-ish patch, but it's very straightforward. Under this
clang warning, we're not actually allowed to have a global variable
without a previous extern declaration for it. The cases where we
violated this rule fall into three roughly equal groups:
* Stuff that should have been static.
* Stuff that was global but where the extern was local to some
other C file.
* Stuff that was only global when built for the unit tests, that
needed a conditional extern in the headers.
The first two were IMO genuine problems; the last is a wart of how
we build tests.
So, back long ago, XXX012 meant, "before Tor 0.1.2 is released, we
had better revisit this comment and fix it!"
But we have a huge pile of such comments accumulated for a large
number of released versions! Not cool.
So, here's what I tried to do:
* 0.2.9 and 0.2.8 are retained, since those are not yet released.
* XXX+ or XXX++ or XXX++++ or whatever means, "This one looks
quite important!"
* The others, after one-by-one examination, are downgraded to
plain old XXX. Which doesn't mean they aren't a problem -- just
that they cannot possibly be a release-blocking problem.
