It is not supported, and always fails. Some compilers warn about the
function pointer cast on 64-bit Windows.
Fixes bug 27461; bugfix on 0.2.2.23-alpha.
gcc 8 warns that extend_info_t.nickname might be truncated by strncpy().
But it doesn't know that nickname can either contain a hex id, or a
nicknames. hex ids are only used for general and HSDir circuits.
Fixes bug 27463; bugfix on 0.1.1.2-alpha.
GetProcAddress() returns FARPROC, which is (long long int(*)()) on
64-bit Windows:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms683212(v=vs.85).aspx
But GetAdaptersAddresses() is (long unsigned int(*)()), on both 32-bit
and 64-bit Windows:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/api/iphlpapi/nf-iphlpapi-getadaptersaddresses
So gcc 8 issues a spurious "incompatible function pointer" warning
about the cast to GetAdaptersAddresses_fn_t.
Silence this warning by casting to a void function pointer, before
the cast to GetAdaptersAddresses_fn_t.
This issue is already fixed by 26481 in 0.3.5 and later, by removing
the lookup and cast.
Fixes bug 27465; bugfix on 0.2.3.11-alpha.
This reverts commit b5fddbd241.
The commit here was supposed to be a solution for #27451 (fd
management with NSS), but instead it caused an assertion failure.
Fixes bug 27500; but not in any released Tor.
On new glibc versions, there's an explicit_bzero(). With openssl,
there's openssl_memwipe().
When no other approach works, use memwipe() and a memory barrier.
This function was a wrapper around RSA_check_key() in openssl, which
checks for invalid RSA private keys (like those where p or q are
composite, or where d is not the inverse of e, or where n != p*q).
We don't need a function like this in NSS, since unlike OpenSSL, NSS
won't let you import a bogus private key.
I've renamed the function and changed its return type to make it
more reasonable, and added a unit test for trying to read a key
where n != p*q.
This function was supposed to implement a half-duplex mode for our
TLS connections. However, nothing in Tor actually uses it (besides
some unit tests), and the implementation looks really questionable
to me. It's probably best to remove it. We can add a tested one
later if we need one in the future.
