Use the following coccinelle script to change uses of
smartlist_add(sl, tor_strdup(str)) to
smartlist_add_strdup(sl, string) (coccinelle script from nickm
via bug 20048):
@@
expression a;
expression b;
@@
- smartlist_add
+ smartlist_add_strdup
(a,
- tor_strdup(
b
- )
)
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.
Previously, you needed to store the previous log severity in a local
variable, and it wasn't clear if you were allowed to call these
functions more than once.
The functions it warns about are:
assert, memcmp, strcat, strcpy, sprintf, malloc, free, realloc,
strdup, strndup, calloc.
Also, fix a few lingering instances of these in the code. Use other
conventions to indicate _intended_ use of assert and
malloc/realloc/etc.
This patch makes us retain the intermediate list of K=V entries for
the duration of computing our vote, and lets us use that list with
a new function in order to look up parameters before the consensus
is published.
We can't actually use this function yet because of #19011: our
existing code to do this doesn't actually work, and we'll need a new
consensus method to start using it.
Closes ticket #19012.
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>
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.
With the fix for #17150, I added a duplicate certificate here. Here
I remove the original location in 0.2.8. (I wouldn't want to do
that in 027, due to the amount of authority-voting-related code
drift.)
Closes 19073.
