diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'src/test/test_protover.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/test/test_protover.c | 269 |
1 files changed, 252 insertions, 17 deletions
diff --git a/src/test/test_protover.c b/src/test/test_protover.c index 9b94044b91..7bf1471ebd 100644 --- a/src/test/test_protover.c +++ b/src/test/test_protover.c @@ -8,10 +8,20 @@ #include "protover.h" +#include "or.h" +#include "connection_or.h" + static void test_protover_parse(void *arg) { (void) arg; +#ifdef HAVE_RUST + /** This test is disabled on rust builds, because it only exists to test + * internal C functions. */ + tt_skip(); + done: + ; +#else char *re_encoded = NULL; const char *orig = "Foo=1,3 Bar=3 Baz= Quux=9-12,14,15-16,900"; @@ -78,12 +88,18 @@ test_protover_parse(void *arg) SMARTLIST_FOREACH(elts, proto_entry_t *, ent, proto_entry_free(ent)); smartlist_free(elts); tor_free(re_encoded); +#endif } static void test_protover_parse_fail(void *arg) { (void)arg; +#ifdef HAVE_RUST + /** This test is disabled on rust builds, because it only exists to test + * internal C functions. */ + tt_skip(); +#else smartlist_t *elts; /* random junk */ @@ -109,7 +125,7 @@ test_protover_parse_fail(void *arg) /* Broken range */ elts = parse_protocol_list("Link=1,9-8,3"); tt_ptr_op(elts, OP_EQ, NULL); - +#endif done: ; } @@ -238,11 +254,26 @@ test_protover_all_supported(void *arg) tt_assert(! protover_all_supported("Link=3-4 Wombat=9", &msg)); tt_str_op(msg, OP_EQ, "Wombat=9"); tor_free(msg); + + /* Mix of things we support and don't support within a single protocol + * which we do support */ tt_assert(! protover_all_supported("Link=3-999", &msg)); - tt_str_op(msg, OP_EQ, "Link=3-999"); + tt_str_op(msg, OP_EQ, "Link=6-999"); + tor_free(msg); + tt_assert(! protover_all_supported("Link=1-3,345-666", &msg)); + tt_str_op(msg, OP_EQ, "Link=345-666"); + tor_free(msg); + tt_assert(! protover_all_supported("Link=1-3,5-12", &msg)); + tt_str_op(msg, OP_EQ, "Link=6-12"); + tor_free(msg); + + /* Mix of protocols we do support and some we don't, where the protocols + * we do support have some versions we don't support. */ + tt_assert(! protover_all_supported("Link=1-3,5-12 Quokka=9000-9001", &msg)); + tt_str_op(msg, OP_EQ, "Link=6-12 Quokka=9000-9001"); tor_free(msg); - /* CPU/RAM DoS loop: Rust only */ + /* We shouldn't be able to DoS ourselves parsing a large range. */ tt_assert(! protover_all_supported("Sleen=0-2147483648", &msg)); tt_str_op(msg, OP_EQ, "Sleen=0-2147483648"); tor_free(msg); @@ -252,23 +283,22 @@ test_protover_all_supported(void *arg) tt_str_op(msg, OP_EQ, "Sleen=0-4294967294"); tor_free(msg); - /* If we get an unparseable list, we say "yes, that's supported." */ -#ifndef HAVE_RUST - // XXXX let's make this section unconditional: rust should behave the - // XXXX same as C here! + /* If we get a (barely) valid (but unsupported list, we say "yes, that's + * supported." */ + tt_assert(protover_all_supported("Fribble=", &msg)); + tt_ptr_op(msg, OP_EQ, NULL); + + /* If we get a completely unparseable list, protover_all_supported should + * hit a fatal assertion for BUG(entries == NULL). */ tor_capture_bugs_(1); tt_assert(protover_all_supported("Fribble", &msg)); - tt_ptr_op(msg, OP_EQ, NULL); tor_end_capture_bugs_(); - /* This case is forbidden. Since it came from a protover_all_supported, - * it can trigger a bug message. */ + /* If we get a completely unparseable list, protover_all_supported should + * hit a fatal assertion for BUG(entries == NULL). */ tor_capture_bugs_(1); tt_assert(protover_all_supported("Sleen=0-4294967295", &msg)); - tt_ptr_op(msg, OP_EQ, NULL); - tor_free(msg); tor_end_capture_bugs_(); -#endif done: tor_end_capture_bugs_(); @@ -276,6 +306,209 @@ test_protover_all_supported(void *arg) } static void +test_protover_list_supports_protocol_returns_true(void *arg) +{ + (void)arg; + + const char *protocols = "Link=1"; + int is_supported = protocol_list_supports_protocol(protocols, PRT_LINK, 1); + tt_int_op(is_supported, OP_EQ, 1); + + done: + ; +} + +static void +test_protover_list_supports_protocol_for_unsupported_returns_false(void *arg) +{ + (void)arg; + + const char *protocols = "Link=1"; + int is_supported = protocol_list_supports_protocol(protocols, PRT_LINK, 10); + tt_int_op(is_supported, OP_EQ, 0); + + done: + ; +} + +static void +test_protover_supports_version(void *arg) +{ + (void)arg; + + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol("Link=3-6", PRT_LINK, 3)); + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol("Link=3-6", PRT_LINK, 6)); + tt_assert(!protocol_list_supports_protocol("Link=3-6", PRT_LINK, 7)); + tt_assert(!protocol_list_supports_protocol("Link=3-6", PRT_LINKAUTH, 3)); + + tt_assert(!protocol_list_supports_protocol("Link=4-6 LinkAuth=3", + PRT_LINKAUTH, 2)); + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol("Link=4-6 LinkAuth=3", + PRT_LINKAUTH, 3)); + tt_assert(!protocol_list_supports_protocol("Link=4-6 LinkAuth=3", + PRT_LINKAUTH, 4)); + tt_assert(!protocol_list_supports_protocol_or_later("Link=4-6 LinkAuth=3", + PRT_LINKAUTH, 4)); + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol_or_later("Link=4-6 LinkAuth=3", + PRT_LINKAUTH, 3)); + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol_or_later("Link=4-6 LinkAuth=3", + PRT_LINKAUTH, 2)); + + tt_assert(!protocol_list_supports_protocol_or_later("Link=4-6 LinkAuth=3", + PRT_DESC, 2)); + done: + ; +} + +/* This could be MAX_PROTOCOLS_TO_EXPAND, but that's not exposed by protover */ +#define MAX_PROTOCOLS_TO_TEST 1024 + +/* LinkAuth and Relay protocol versions. + * Hard-coded here, because they are not in the code, or not exposed in the + * headers. */ +#define PROTOVER_LINKAUTH_V1 1 +#define PROTOVER_LINKAUTH_V3 3 + +#define PROTOVER_RELAY_V1 1 +#define PROTOVER_RELAY_V2 2 + +/* Highest supported HSv2 introduce protocol version. + * Hard-coded here, because it does not appear anywhere in the code. + * It's not clear if we actually support version 2, see #25068. */ +#define PROTOVER_HSINTRO_V2 3 + +/* HSv2 Rend and HSDir protocol versions. + * Hard-coded here, because they do not appear anywhere in the code. */ +#define PROTOVER_HS_RENDEZVOUS_POINT_V2 1 +#define PROTOVER_HSDIR_V2 1 + +/* DirCache, Desc, Microdesc, and Cons protocol versions. + * Hard-coded here, because they do not appear anywhere in the code. */ +#define PROTOVER_DIRCACHE_V1 1 +#define PROTOVER_DIRCACHE_V2 2 + +#define PROTOVER_DESC_V1 1 +#define PROTOVER_DESC_V2 2 + +#define PROTOVER_MICRODESC_V1 1 +#define PROTOVER_MICRODESC_V2 2 + +#define PROTOVER_CONS_V1 1 +#define PROTOVER_CONS_V2 2 + +/* Make sure we haven't forgotten any supported protocols */ +static void +test_protover_supported_protocols(void *arg) +{ + (void)arg; + + const char *supported_protocols = protover_get_supported_protocols(); + + /* Test for new Link in the code, that hasn't been added to supported + * protocols */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_LINK, + MAX_LINK_PROTO)); + for (uint16_t i = 0; i < MAX_PROTOCOLS_TO_TEST; i++) { + if (is_or_protocol_version_known(i)) { + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_LINK, + i)); + } + } + + /* Legacy LinkAuth does not appear anywhere in the code. */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_LINKAUTH, + PROTOVER_LINKAUTH_V1)); + /* Latest LinkAuth is not exposed in the headers. */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_LINKAUTH, + PROTOVER_LINKAUTH_V3)); + /* Is there any way to test for new LinkAuth? */ + + /* Relay protovers do not appear anywhere in the code. */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_RELAY, + PROTOVER_RELAY_V1)); + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_RELAY, + PROTOVER_RELAY_V2)); + /* Is there any way to test for new Relay? */ + + /* We could test legacy HSIntro by calling rend_service_update_descriptor(), + * and checking the protocols field. But that's unlikely to change, so + * we just use a hard-coded value. */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_HSINTRO, + PROTOVER_HSINTRO_V2)); + /* Test for HSv3 HSIntro */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_HSINTRO, + PROTOVER_HS_INTRO_V3)); + /* Is there any way to test for new HSIntro? */ + + /* Legacy HSRend does not appear anywhere in the code. */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_HSREND, + PROTOVER_HS_RENDEZVOUS_POINT_V2)); + /* Test for HSv3 HSRend */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_HSREND, + PROTOVER_HS_RENDEZVOUS_POINT_V3)); + /* Is there any way to test for new HSRend? */ + + /* Legacy HSDir does not appear anywhere in the code. */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_HSDIR, + PROTOVER_HSDIR_V2)); + /* Test for HSv3 HSDir */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_HSDIR, + PROTOVER_HSDIR_V3)); + /* Is there any way to test for new HSDir? */ + + /* No DirCache versions appear anywhere in the code. */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_DIRCACHE, + PROTOVER_DIRCACHE_V1)); + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_DIRCACHE, + PROTOVER_DIRCACHE_V2)); + /* Is there any way to test for new DirCache? */ + + /* No Desc versions appear anywhere in the code. */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_DESC, + PROTOVER_DESC_V1)); + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_DESC, + PROTOVER_DESC_V2)); + /* Is there any way to test for new Desc? */ + + /* No Microdesc versions appear anywhere in the code. */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_MICRODESC, + PROTOVER_MICRODESC_V1)); + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_MICRODESC, + PROTOVER_MICRODESC_V2)); + /* Is there any way to test for new Microdesc? */ + + /* No Cons versions appear anywhere in the code. */ + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_CONS, + PROTOVER_CONS_V1)); + tt_assert(protocol_list_supports_protocol(supported_protocols, + PRT_CONS, + PROTOVER_CONS_V2)); + /* Is there any way to test for new Cons? */ + + done: + ; +} + +static void test_protover_vote_roundtrip(void *args) { (void) args; @@ -312,8 +545,6 @@ test_protover_vote_roundtrip(void *args) { "Link=1,9-8,3", NULL }, { "Faux=-0", NULL }, { "Faux=0--0", NULL }, - // "These fail at the splitting stage in Rust, but the number parsing - // stage in C." { "Faux=-1", NULL }, { "Faux=-1-3", NULL }, { "Faux=1--1", NULL }, @@ -322,9 +553,9 @@ test_protover_vote_roundtrip(void *args) /* Large range */ { "Sleen=1-501", "Sleen=1-501" }, { "Sleen=1-65537", NULL }, - /* CPU/RAM DoS Loop: Rust only. */ + /* Both C/Rust implementations should be able to handle this mild DoS. */ { "Sleen=0-2147483648", NULL }, - /* Rust seems to experience an internal error here. */ + /* Rust tests are built in debug mode, so ints are bounds-checked. */ { "Sleen=0-4294967295", NULL }, }; unsigned u; @@ -360,6 +591,10 @@ struct testcase_t protover_tests[] = { PV_TEST(parse_fail, 0), PV_TEST(vote, 0), PV_TEST(all_supported, 0), + PV_TEST(list_supports_protocol_for_unsupported_returns_false, 0), + PV_TEST(list_supports_protocol_returns_true, 0), + PV_TEST(supports_version, 0), + PV_TEST(supported_protocols, 0), PV_TEST(vote_roundtrip, 0), END_OF_TESTCASES }; |