| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| ... | |
| |/ / / / / /
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Long ago, before we had cell queues, it was necessary to maybe call
connection_handle_write() from connectino_write_to_buf_impl() on OR
connections, so that we wouldn't get into a loop of reading infinite
amounts of data and queueing it all on an outbuf before bothering to
write any data.
If that doesn't sounds like what our code does now, you're right:
right now, we won't stick more than OR_CONN_HIGHWATER bytes of cells
on an outbuf, and we won't suck more than CELL_QUEUE_HIGHWATER_SIZE
cells off any edge connection. So, there's no more call for that
code.
Removing this code will simplify our data flow, and that should be
something we can all get behind.
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \
| | |/ / / /
| |/| | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Closes #6423.
|
| |\| | | | | |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Apparently, (void)writev is not enough to suppress the "you are
ignoring the return value!" warnings on Linux. Instead, remove the
whole warning/error logic when compiling openbsd_malloc for Tor: we
can't use it.
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
The warning fixes are:
- Only define issetugid if it's missing.
- Explicitly ignore the return value of writev.
- Explicitly cast the retval of readlink() to int.
The 64-bit problems are related to just storing a size_t in an int. Not cool! Use a size_t instead.
Fix for bug 6379. Bugfix on 0.2.0.20-rc, which introduced openbsd-malloc.
|
| |\| | | | | | |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Apparently, we weren't actually detecting wildcardedness when parsing
them: whoops!
bug 6244. Bugfix on 0.2.3.9-alpha
|
| | | |/ / / / /
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
This patch extracts the inner part of config_register_addressmaps --
the part that knows about detecting wildcard addresses addresses --
and makes it into a new function. The new function is deliberately
not moved or reindented, so that the diff is smaller.
I need this to fix bug 6244.
|
| |\| | | | | | |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | |/ / / / /
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Thanks to the changes we started making with SocksPort and friends
in 0.2.3.3-alpha, any of our code that did "if (options->Sockport)"
became wrong, since "SocksPort 0" would make that test true whereas
using the default SocksPort value would make it false. (We didn't
actually do "if (options->SockPort)" but we did have tests for
TransPort. When we moved DirPort, ORPort, and ControlPort over to
the same system in 0.2.3.9-alpha, the problem got worse, since our
code is littered with checks for DirPort and ORPort as booleans.
This code renames the current linelist-based FooPort options to
FooPort_lines, and adds new FooPort_set options which get set at
parse-and-validate time on the or_options_t. FooPort_set is true
iff we will actually try to open a listener of the given type. (I
renamed the FooPort options rather than leave them alone so that
every previous user of a FooPort would need to get inspected, and so
that any new code that forgetfully uses FooPort will need fail to
compile.)
Fix for bug 6507.
|
| |\| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Also promote log messages to notice and rate-limit them.
|
| | | |/ / / / /
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
This is done to avoid spurious warns. Additional log lines are also
added to try to track down the codepaths where we are somehow overcounting
success counts.
|
| |\| | | | | |
| |_|_|/ / /
|/| | | | | |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \
| | |/ / / /
| |/| | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
I can't currently find a bug here, but there are a couple of
near-misses. Addresses ticket 6514; reported pseudonymously on
IRC.
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Extend cells aren't allowed to have a stream_id, but we were only
blocking them when they had a stream_id that corresponded to a
connection. As far as I can tell, this change is harmless: it will
make some kinds of broken clients not work any more, but afaik nobody
actually make a client that was broken in that way.
Found while hunting for other places where we made the same mistake
as in 6271.
Bugfix on d7f50337c14c back from May 2003, which introduced
telescoping circuit construction into 0.0.2pre8.
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
This function never actually did us any good, and it added a little
complexity. See the changes file for more info.
|
| | |_|_|_|/
|/| | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| |\| | | | |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
I only check on circuits, not streams, since bloating your stream
window past the initial circuit window can't help you much.
Also, I compare to CIRCWINDOW_START_MAX so we don't have surprising
races if we lower CIRCWINDOW_START for an experiment.
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
And more to the point, some GCCs will warn that you can't say it
before C90.
Bug not in any released version of Tor.
|
| |\| | | | | |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Conflicts:
src/or/routerlist.c
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
I don't personally agree that this is likely to be easy to exploit,
and some initial experimention I've done suggests that cache-miss
times are just plain too fast to get useful info out of when they're
mixed up with the rest of Tor's timing noise. Nevertheless, I'm
leaving Robert's initial changelog entry in the git history so that he
can be the voice of reason if I'm wrong. :)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Tor's and OpenSSL's current design guarantee that there are other leaks,
but this one is likely to be more easily exploitable, and is easy to fix.
|
| |\| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| |\| | | | | | |
|
| | |\| | | | |
| | |_|/ / /
| |/| | | | |
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Fix for 6530; fix on 0.2.2.6-alpha.
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
The values are only being checked, not modified.
|