| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| ... | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | |_|/ / / / / /
|/| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
It's a little confusing for me to say "only X/Y descriptors" when
I have microdescriptors enabled. So, let's fix that.
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Previously we were using router_get_by_id(foo) to test "do we have a
descriptor that will let us make an anonymous circuit to foo". But
that isn't right for microdescs: we should have been using node_t.
Fixes bug 3601; bugfix on 0.2.3.1-alpha.
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Instead, use compare_tor_addr_to_node_policy everywhere.
One advantage of this is that compare_tor_addr_to_node_policy can
better distinguish 0.0.0.0 from "unknown", which caused a nasty bug
with microdesc users.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Previously, we had an issue where we'd treat an unknown address as
0, which turned into "0.0.0.0", which looked like a rejected
address. This meant in practice that as soon as we started doing
comparisons of unknown uint32 addresses to short policies, we'd get
'rejected' right away. Because of the circumstances under which
this would be called, it would only happen when we had local DNS
cached entries and we were looking to launch new circuits.
|
| |/ / / / / / / /
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Nothing used it but the unit tests; everything else knows to use
compare_tor_addr_to_addr_policy instead.
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Requested by Gisle Vanem on tor-dev. I'm not quite sure this is the
right solution, but it's probably harmless.
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| | |/ / / / / /
| |/| | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Conflicts:
src/or/control.c
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
It's possible for us to be a server and have a fingerprint without
having yet generated a descriptor.
Fixes bug 3577; bugfix on 0.2.0.1-alpha
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Bugfix on 0.2.3.1-alpha; found by arma; never got a bug number.
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| |/ / / / / / / / |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Conflicts:
doc/spec/socks-extensions.txt
src/or/buffers.c
src/or/config.c
src/or/connection_edge.c
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Suggested by Linus to avoid uninitialized reads or infinite loops if
it turns out our code is buggier than we had thought.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Previously, fetch_from_buf_socks() might return 0 if there was still
data on the buffer and a subsequent call to fetch_from_buf_socks()
would return 1. This was making some of the socks5 unit tests
harder to write, and could potentially have caused misbehavior with
some overly verbose SOCKS implementations. Now,
fetch_from_buf_socks() does as much processing as it can, and
returns 0 only if it really needs more data. This brings it into
line with the evbuffer socks implementation.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
We added this back in 0649fa14 in 2006, to deal with the case where
the client unconditionally sent us authentication data. Hopefully,
that's not needed any longer, since we now can actually parse
authentication data.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
This change also requires us to add and use a pair of
allocator/deallocator functions for socks_request_t, instead of
using tor_malloc_zero/tor_free directly.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
In the code as it stood, we would accept any number of socks5
username/password authentication messages, regardless of whether we
had actually negotiated username/password authentication. Instead,
we should only accept one, and only if we have really negotiated
username/password authentication.
This patch also makes some fields of socks_request_t into uint8_t,
for safety.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Implement nickm's suggestion that we tolerate SOCKS5 clients
that send authentication credentials and SOCKS commands all in
one go.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Add changes file.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Address Nick's comments:
- Refactor against changes in buffers.c
- Ensure we have negotiated a method before accepting
authentication credentials
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
If a SOCKS5 client insists on authentication, allow it to
negotiate a connection with Tor's SOCKS server successfully.
Any credentials the client provides are ignored.
This allows Tor to work with SOCKS5 clients that can only
support 'authenticated' connections.
Also add a bunch of basic unit tests for SOCKS4/4a/5 support
in buffers.c.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| |_|_|_|/ / / / / /
|/| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Previously, we'd just take all the nodes in EntryNodes, see which
ones were already in the guard list, and add the ones that weren't.
There were some problems there, though:
* We'd add _every_ entry in EntryNodes, and add them in the order
they appeared in the routerlist. This wasn't a problem
until we added the ability to give country-code or IP-range
entries in the EntryNodes set, but now that we did, it is.
(Fix: We now shuffle the entry nodes before adding them; only
add up to 10*NumEntryGuards)
* We didn't screen EntryNodes for the Guard flag. That's okay
if the user has specified two or three entry nodes manually,
but if they have listed a whole subcontinent, we should
restrict ourselves to the entries that are currently guards.
(Fix: separate out the new guard from the new non-guard nodes,
and add the Guards first.)
* We'd prepend new EntryNodes _before_ the already configured
EntryNodes. This could lead to churn.
(Fix: don't prepend these.)
This patch also pre-screens EntryNodes entries for
reachableaddresses/excludenodes, even though we check for that
later. This is important now, since we cap the number of entries
we'll add.
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | |/ / / / / / / / /
| |/| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
It's very easy for nodelist_add_node_family(sl,node) to accidentally
add 'node', and kind of hard to make sure that it omits it. Instead
of taking pains to leave 'node' out, let's instead make sure that we
always include it.
I also rename the function to nodelist_add_node_and_family, and
audit its users so that they don't add the node itself any longer,
since the function will take care of that for them.
Resolves bug 2616, which was not actually a bug.
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Rationale: right now there seems to be no way for our bootstrap
status to dip under 100% once it has reached 100%. Thus, recording
broken connections after that point is useless, and wastes memory.
If at some point in the future we allow our bootstrap level to go
backwards, then we should change this rule so that we disable
recording broken connection states _as long as_ the bootstrap status
is 100%.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
- We were reporting the _bottom_ N failing states, not the top N.
- With bufferevents enabled, we logged all TLS states as being "in
bufferevent", which isn't actually informative.
- When we had nothing to report, we reported nothing too loudly.
- Also, we needed documentation.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
