This lets us drop the testing-only function buf_get_first_chunk_data(),
and lets us implement proto_http and proto_socks without looking at
buf_t internals.
Deprecated in 0.2.9.2-alpha, this commits changes it as OBSOLETE() and cleans
up the code associated with it.
Partially fixes#22060
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
This patch refactors our streaming compression code to allow us to
extend it with non-zlib/non-gzip based compression schemas.
See https://bugs.torproject.org/21663
This feature makes it possible to turn off memory sentinels (like
those used for safety in buffers.c and memarea.c) when fuzzing, so
that we can catch bugs that they would otherwise prevent.
Fixes bug 20894; bugfix on 0.2.0.16-alpha.
We already applied a workaround for this as 20834, so no need to
freak out (unless you didn't apply 20384 yet).
This helps protect against bugs where any part of a buf_t's memory
is passed to a function that expects a NUL-terminated input.
It also closes TROVE-2016-10-001 (aka bug 20384).
This commit adds or improves the module-level documenation for:
buffers.c circuitstats.c command.c connection_edge.c control.c
cpuworker.c crypto_curve25519.c crypto_curve25519.h
crypto_ed25519.c crypto_format.c dircollate.c dirserv.c dns.c
dns_structs.h fp_pair.c geoip.c hibernate.c keypin.c ntmain.c
onion.c onion_fast.c onion_ntor.c onion_tap.c periodic.c
protover.c protover.h reasons.c rephist.c replaycache.c
routerlist.c routerparse.c routerset.c statefile.c status.c
tor_main.c workqueue.c
In particular, I've tried to explain (for each documented module)
what each module does, what's in it, what the big idea is, why it
belongs in Tor, and who calls it. In a few cases, I've added TODO
notes about refactoring opportunities.
I've also renamed an argument, and fixed a few DOCDOC comments.
These functions were there so that we could abstract the differences
between evbuffer and buf_t. But with the bufferevent removal, this
no longer serves a purpose.
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.
