This is an important thing I hadn't considered when writing prop271:
sometimes you have to restrict what guard you use for a particular
circuit. Most frequently, that would be because you plan to use a
certain node as your exit, and so you can't choose that for your
guard.
This change means that the upgrade-waiting-circuits algorithm needs
a slight tweak too: circuit A cannot block circuit B from upgrading
if circuit B needs to follow a restriction that circuit A does not
follow.
I had been asking myself, "hey, doesn't the new code need to look at
this "info" parameter? The old code did!" But it turns out that the
old code hasn't, since 05f7336624.
So instead of "support this!" the comment now says "we can remove
this!"
George pointed out that (-1,0,1) for (never usable, maybe usable
later, usable right now) was a pretty rotten convention that made
the code harder to read.
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.
Still missing is functionality for picking bridges when we don't
know a descriptor for them yet, and functionality for learning a
bridge ID.
Everything else remains (basically) the same. Neat!
This includes:
* making bridge_info_t exposed but opaque
* allowing guards where we don't know an identity
* making it possible to learn the identity of a guard
* creating a guard that lacks a node_t
* remembering a guard's address and port.
* Looking up a guard by address and port.
* Only enforcing the rule that we need a live consensus to update
the "listed" status for guards when we are not using bridges.
This is safe, because no entry_guard_t ever outlives its
guard_selection_t.
I want this because now that multiple guard selections can be active
during one tor session, we should make sure that any information we
register about guards is with respect to the selection that they came
from.
Currently, this code doesn't actually have the contexts behave
differently, (except for the legacy context), but it does switch
back and forth between them nicely.
If a guard becomes primary as a result of confirming it, consider
the circuit through that guard as a primary circuit.
Also, note open questions on behavior when confirming nonprimary guards
Some of these will get torrc options to override them too; this
is just the mechanical conversion.
Also, add documentation for a couple of undocumented (but now used)
parameters.
Act I.
" But that I am forbid
To tell the secrets of my prison-house,
I could a tale unfold..."
Here's the bug: sometimes, rend_cache/store_v2_desc_as_client would
say:
"Dec 15 08:31:26.147 [warn] rend_cache_store_v2_desc_as_client():
Bug: Couldn't decode base32 [scrubbed] for descriptor id. (on Tor
0.3.0.0-alpha-dev 4098bfa260)"
When we merged ade5005853 back in 0.2.8.1-alpha, we added that
test: it mangles the hidden service ID for a hidden service, and
ensures that when the descriptor ID doesn't match the descriptor's
key, we don't store the descriptor.
How did it mangle the descriptor ID? By doing
desc_id_base32[0]++;
So, if the hidden service ID started with z or 7, we'd wind up with an
invalid base32 string, and get the warning. And if it started with
any other character, we wouldn't.
That there is part 1 of the bug: in 2/32 cases, we'd get a BUG
warning. But we wouldn't display it, since warnings weren't shown
from the unit tests.
Act II.
"Our indiscretion sometime serves us well,
When our deep plots do pall"
Part two: in 0.2.9.3-alpha, for part of #19999, we turned on BUG
warnings in the unit tests, so that we'd actually start seeing them.
At this point we also began to consider each BUG warning that made
it through the unit tests to be an actual bug. So before this
point, we wouldn't actually notice anything happening in those 2/32
cases.
So, at this point it was a nice random _visible_ bug.
Act III.
"Our thoughts are ours, their ends none of our own"
In acbb60cd63, which was part of my prop220 work, I
changed how RSA key generation worked in the unit tests. While
previously we'd use pre-made RSA keys in some cases, this change
made us use a set of pregenerated RSA keys for _all_ 1024 or 2048
keys, and to return them in a rotation when Tor tried to generate a
key.
And now we had the heisenbug: anything that affected the number of
pregenerated keys that we had yielded before reaching
rend_cache/store_v2_desc_as_client would make us return a different
key, which would give us a different base32 ID, which would make the
bug occur, or not. So as we added or removed test cases, the bug
might or might not happen.
So yeah. Don't mangle a base32 ID like that. Do it this way instead.
