Since Tor 0.2.9 has been unsupported since January, 0.3.5 is the
oldest supported version, and its features constitute the oldest
recommended feature-set.
This patch updates these recommendations:
DirCache=2
Support for consensus diffs.
New in 0.3.1.1-alpha.
HSDir=2
Support for v3 onion service descriptors.
New in 0.3.0.4-alpha.
HSIntro=4
Support for Ed25519 intropoint authentication keys.
New in 0.3.0-4-alpha.
HSRend=2
Support for rendezvous cells longer than 20 bytes.
New in 0.2.9.4-alpha.
Link=5
Link padding and link padding negotiation.
New in 0.3.3.2-alpha.
LinkAuth=3
Ed25519 link authentication.
New in 0.3.0.1-alpha.
Resume being willing to use preemptively-built circuits when
UseEntryGuards is set to 0. We accidentally disabled this feature with
that config setting (in our fix for #24469), leading to slower load times.
Fixes bug 34303; bugfix on 0.3.3.2-alpha.
Add an inline helper function that indicates if the cached object contains a
decrypted descriptor or not.
The descriptor object is NULL if tor is unable to decrypt it (lacking client
authorization) and some actions need to be done only when we have a decrypted
object.
This improves code semantic.
Fixes#33458
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
The warning was:
11:23:10 ../tor/src/feature/hs/hs_service.c: In function 'log_cant_upload_desc':
11:23:10 ../tor/src/feature/hs/hs_service.c:3118:3: error: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false [-Werror=type-limits]
See #34254 for more info.
I guess this means that gcc assigned an unsigned type to the
`log_desc_upload_reason_t` enum and it warned if we compared it against 0...
For now I think it's simpler to remove that check instead of turning the enum
to a signed type, or trying to hack it some other way.
From what it seems, enum is up to the compiler on whether it's signed/unsigned:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/159034/are-c-enums-signed-or-unsigned
GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that. Clang recently added
the same thing.
GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments. Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))". Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.
A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.
This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:
#!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;
(In order to avoid conflicts, I'm applying this script separately to
each maint branch. This is the 0.4.3 version.)
GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that. Clang recently added
the same thing.
GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments. Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))". Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.
A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.
This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:
#!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;
(In order to avoid conflicts, I'm applying this script separately to
each maint branch. This is the 0.4.2 version.)
GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that. Clang recently added
the same thing.
GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments. Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))". Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.
A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.
This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:
#!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;
(In order to avoid conflicts, I'm applying this script separately to
each maint branch. This is the 0.4.1 version.)
GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that. Clang recently added
the same thing.
GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments. Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))". Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.
A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.
This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:
#!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;
Move a series of function from config.c into that new file which is related to
address resolving.
Part of #33789
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
