| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
Retry directory downloads when we get our first bridge descriptor
during bootstrap or while reconnecting to the network. Keep retrying
every time we get a bridge descriptor, until we have a reachable bridge.
Stop delaying bridge descriptor fetches when we have cached bridge
descriptors. Instead, only delay bridge descriptor fetches when we
have at least one reachable bridge.
Fixes bug 24367; bugfix on 0.2.0.3-alpha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TROVE-2017-12. Severity: Medium
Thankfully, tor will close any circuits that we try to extend to
ourselves so this is not problematic but annoying.
Part of #21534.
|
|
This applies the changes in 23524 to num_usable_bridges(), because it has
replaced any_bridge_descriptors_known().
The original changes file still applies.
|
|
Stop checking for bridge descriptors when we actually want to know if
any bridges are usable. This avoids potential bootstrapping issues.
Fixes bug 24367; bugfix on 0.2.0.3-alpha.
Stop stalling when bridges are changed at runtime. Stop stalling when
old bridge descriptors are cached, but they are not in use.
Fixes bug 24367; bugfix on 23347 in 0.3.2.1-alpha.
|
|
|
|
We used to check whether we have enough filtered guards (guard set when
torrc is applied) but that's not good enough, since that might be bad in
some cases where many guards are not reachable (might cause overblocking
and hence reacahbility issues).
We now check if we have enough reachable filtered guards before applying
md restrictions which should prevent overblocking.
|
|
|
|
This seems closer to what the code intended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix those misplaced brackets.
Signed-off-by: Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the new path selection logic went into place, I accidentally
dropped the code that considered the _family_ of the exit node when
deciding if the guard was usable, and we didn't catch that during
code review.
This patch makes the guard_restriction_t code consider the exit
family as well, and adds some (hopefully redundant) checks for the
case where we lack a node_t for a guard but we have a bridge_info_t
for it.
Fixes bug 22753; bugfix on 0.3.0.1-alpha. Tracked as TROVE-2016-006
and CVE-2017-0377.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suggested by asn on 22400 review.
|
|
Fixes what I think is the main root cause of 22400. Bugfix on
0.3.0.1-alpha.
|
|
This will help if we ever need to add more fields or change the
semantics of existing fields.
|
|
|
|
We used to not set the guard state in launch_direct_bridge_descriptor_fetch().
So when a bridge descriptor fetch failed, the guard subsystem would never
learn about the fail (and hence the guard's reachability state would not
be updated).
|
|
We used to not set the guard state in launch_direct_bridge_descriptor_fetch().
So when a bridge descriptor fetch failed, the guard subsystem would never
learn about the fail (and hence the guard's reachability state would not
be updated).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When calculating max sampled size, Tor would only count the number of
bridges in torrc, without considering that our state file might already
have sampled bridges in it. This caused problems when people swap
bridges, since the following error would trigger:
[warn] Not expanding the guard sample any further; just hit the
maximum sample threshold of 1
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit 5298ab59170be74aed20e04e5378ec66eef6476e.
|
|
In that chutney test, the bridge client is configured to connect to
the same bridge at 127.0.0.1:5003 _and_ at [::1]:5003, with no
change in transports.
That meant, I think, that the descriptor is only assigned to the
first bridge when it arrives, and never the second.
|
|
- Make sure we check at least two guards for descriptor before making
circuits. We typically use the first primary guard for circuits, but
it can also happen that we use the second primary guard (e.g. if we
pick our first primary guard as an exit), so we should make sure we
have descriptors for both of them.
- Remove BUG() from the guard_has_descriptor() check since we now know
that this can happen in rare but legitimate situations as well, and we
should just move to the next guard in that case.
|
|
Previously I'd made a bad assumption in the implementation of
prop271 in 0.3.0.1-alpha: I'd assumed that there couldn't be two
guards with the same identity. That's true for non-bridges, but in
the bridge case, we allow two bridges to have the same ID if they
have different addr:port combinations -- in order to have the same
bridge ID running multiple PTs.
Fortunately, this assumption wasn't deeply ingrained: we stop
enforcing the "one guard per ID" rule in the bridge case, and
instead enforce "one guard per <id,addr,port>".
We also needed to tweak our implementation of
get_bridge_info_for_guard, since it made the same incorrect
assumption.
Fixes bug 21027; bugfix on 0.3.0.1-alpha.
|
|
We already implemented this whole function somewhere else; no need
to have the same code twice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
up-to-date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
