This warning, IIUC, means that the compiler doesn't like it when it
sees a NULL check _after_ we've already dereferenced the
variable. In such cases, it considers itself free to eliminate the
NULL check.
There are a couple of tricky cases:
One was the case related to the fact that tor_addr_to_in6() can
return NULL if it gets a non-AF_INET6 address. The fix was to
create a variant which asserts on the address type, and never
returns NULL.
Previously, we used !directory_fetches_from_authorities() to predict
that we would tunnel connections. But the rules have changed
somewhat over the course of 0.2.8
So, back long ago, XXX012 meant, "before Tor 0.1.2 is released, we
had better revisit this comment and fix it!"
But we have a huge pile of such comments accumulated for a large
number of released versions! Not cool.
So, here's what I tried to do:
* 0.2.9 and 0.2.8 are retained, since those are not yet released.
* XXX+ or XXX++ or XXX++++ or whatever means, "This one looks
quite important!"
* The others, after one-by-one examination, are downgraded to
plain old XXX. Which doesn't mean they aren't a problem -- just
that they cannot possibly be a release-blocking problem.
There was a > that should have been an ==, and a missing !. These
together prevented us from issuing a warning in the case that a
nickname matched an Unnamed node only.
Fixes bug 19203; bugfix on 0.2.3.1-alpha.
Remove support for "GET /tor/bytes.txt" DirPort request, and
"GETINFO dir-usage" controller request, which were only available
via a compile-time option in Tor anyway.
Feature was added in 0.2.2.1-alpha. Resolves ticket 19035.
I introduced this bug when I moved signing_key_cert into
signed_descriptor_t. Bug not in any released Tor. Fixes bug 19175, and
another case of 19128.
Just like signed_descriptor_from_routerinfo(), routerlist_reparse_old()
copies the fields from one signed_descriptor_t to another, and then
clears the fields from the original that would have been double-freed by
freeing the original. But when I fixed the s_d_f_r() bug [#19128] in
50cbf22099, I missed the fact that the code was duplicated in
r_p_o().
Duplicated code strikes again!
For a longer-term solution here, I am not only adding the missing fix to
r_p_o(): I am also extracting the duplicated code into a new function.
Many thanks to toralf for patiently sending me stack traces until
one made sense.
Now that the field exists in signed_descriptor_t, we need to make
sure we free it when we free a signed_descriptor_t, and we need to
make sure that we don't free it when we convert a routerinfo_t to a
signed_descriptor_t.
But not in any released Tor. I found this while working on #19128.
One problem: I don't see how this could cause 19128.
With the fix for #17150, I added a duplicate certificate here. Here
I remove the original location in 0.2.8. (I wouldn't want to do
that in 027, due to the amount of authority-voting-related code
drift.)
Closes 19073.
This API change makes it so that routerinfo_incompatible...() no
longer takes a routerinfo_t, so that it's obvious that it should
only look at fields from the signed_descriptor_t.
This change should prevent a recurrence of #17150.
We need this field to be in signed_descriptor_t so that
routerinfo_incompatible_with_extrainfo can work correctly (#17150).
But I don't want to move it completely in this patch, since a great
deal of the code that messes with it has been in flux since 0.2.7,
when this ticket was opened. I should open another ticket about
removing the field from routerinfo_t and extrainfo_t later on.
This patch fixes no actual behavior.
The routerinfo we pass to routerinfo_incompatible_with_extrainfo is
the latest routerinfo for the relay. The signed_descriptor_t, on
the other hand, is the signed_descriptor_t that corresponds to the
extrainfo. That means we should be checking the digest256 match
with that signed_descriptor_t, not with the routerinfo.
Fixes bug 17150 (and 19017); bugfix on 0.2.7.2-alpha.
