Previously, we only looked at up to 128 bytes. This is a bad idea
since socks messages can be at least 256+x bytes long. Now we look at
up to 512 bytes; this should be enough for 0.2.2.x to handle all valid
SOCKS messages. For 0.2.3.x, we can think about handling trickier
cases.
Fixes 2330. Bugfix on 0.2.0.16-alpha.
Right now, Tor routers don't save the maxima values from the
bw_history_t between sessions. That's no good, since we use those
values to determine bandwidth. This code adds a new BWHist.*Maximum
set of values to the state file. If they're not present, we estimate
them by taking the observed total bandwidth and dividing it by the
period length, which provides a lower bound.
This should fix bug 1863. I'm calling it a feature.
Previously, our state parsing code would fail to parse a bwhist
correctly if the Interval was anything other than the default
hardcoded 15 minutes. This change makes the parsing less incorrect,
though the resulting history array might get strange values in it if
the intervals don't match the one we're using. (That is, if stuff was
generated in 15 minute intervals, and we read it into an array that
expects 30 minute intervals, we're fine, since values can be combined
pairwise. But if we generate data at 30 minute intervals and read it
into 15 minute intervals, alternating buckets will be empty.)
Bugfix on 0.1.1.11-alpha.
The trick of looping from i=0..4 , switching on i to set up some
variables, then running some common code is much better expressed by
just calling a function 4 times with 4 sets of arguments. This should
make the code a little easier to follow and maintain here.
An object, you'll recall, is something between -----BEGIN----- and
-----END----- tags in a directory document. Some of our code, as
doorss has noted in bug 2352, could assert if one of these ever
overflowed SIZE_T_CEILING but not INT_MAX. As a solution, I'm setting
a maximum size on a single object such that neither of these limits
will ever be hit. I'm also fixing the INT_MAX checks, just to be sure.
When using libevent 2, we use evdns_base_resolve_*(). When not, we
fake evdns_base_resolve_*() using evdns_resolve_*().
Our old check was looking for negative values (like libevent 2
returns), but our eventdns.c code returns 1. This code makes the
check just test for nonzero.
Note that this broken check was not for _resolve_ failures or even for
failures to _launch_ a resolve: it was for failures to _create_ or
_encode_ a resolve request.
Bug introduced in 81eee0ecfff3dac1e9438719d2f7dc0ba7e84a71; found by
lodger; uploaded to trac by rransom. Bug 2363. Fix on 0.2.2.6-alpha.
This was originally a patch provided by pipe
(http://www.mail-archive.com/or-talk@freehaven.net/msg13085.html) to
provide a method for controllers to query the total amount of traffic
tor has handled (this is a frequently requested piece of information
by relay operators).
C99 allows a syntax for structures whose last element is of
unspecified length:
struct s {
int elt1;
...
char last_element[];
};
Recent (last-5-years) autoconf versions provide an
AC_C_FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER test that defines FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER
to either no tokens (if you have c99 flexible array support) or to 1
(if you don't). At that point you just use offsetof
[STRUCT_OFFSET() for us] to see where last_element begins, and
allocate your structures like:
struct s {
int elt1;
...
char last_element[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER];
};
tor_malloc(STRUCT_OFFSET(struct s, last_element) +
n_elements*sizeof(char));
The advantages are:
1) It's easier to see which structures and elements are of
unspecified length.
2) The compiler and related checking tools can also see which
structures and elements are of unspecified length, in case they
wants to try weird bounds-checking tricks or something.
3) The compiler can warn us if we do something dumb, like try
to stack-allocate a flexible-length structure.
We were not decrementing "available" every time we did
++next_virtual_addr in addressmap_get_virtual_address: we left out the
--available when we skipped .00 and .255 addresses.
This didn't actually cause a bug in most cases, since the failure mode
was to keep looping around the virtual addresses until we found one,
or until available hit zero. It could have given you an infinite loop
rather than a useful message, however, if you said "VirtualAddrNetwork
127.0.0.255/32" or something broken like that.
Spotted by cypherpunks
We were decrementing "available" twice for each in-use address we ran
across. This would make us declare that we ran out of virtual
addresses when the address space was only half full.
