April 2011 - tor-commits - lists.torproject.org

[tor/release-0.2.2] Merge remote-tracking branch 'arma/bug1090-part1-squashed' into bug1090-part1-squashed
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit 99621bc5a629a81a5a823ce21ac3d967443d0e12 Merge: 8f6cb93 0c40dda Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)torproject.org> Date: Wed Apr 27 13:45:28 2011 -0400 Merge remote-tracking branch 'arma/bug1090-part1-squashed' into bug1090-part1-squashed src/or/rendclient.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] warn if we launch too many circuits for a given stream
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit f7a5bc16d689e8b919285c66cd0f07a6694bcc69 Author: Roger Dingledine <arma(a)torproject.org> Date: Tue Apr 26 22:18:01 2011 -0400 warn if we launch too many circuits for a given stream --- changes/bug1090-launch-warning | 5 +++++ src/or/circuituse.c | 13 ++++++++++++- src/or/or.h | 7 +++++++ 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/changes/bug1090-launch-warning b/changes/bug1090-launch-warning new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3f3fbcb --- /dev/null +++ b/changes/bug1090-launch-warning @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ + o Minor features: + - Keep track of how many times we launch a new circuit to handle + a given stream. Too many launches could indicate an inconsistency + between our "launch a circuit to handle this stream" logic and our + "attach our stream to one of the available circuits" logic. diff --git a/src/or/circuituse.c b/src/or/circuituse.c index cc4a739..fd1cf6b 100644 --- a/src/or/circuituse.c +++ b/src/or/circuituse.c @@ -1409,7 +1409,18 @@ circuit_get_open_circ_or_launch(edge_connection_t *conn, extend_info_free(extend_info); - if (desired_circuit_purpose != CIRCUIT_PURPOSE_C_GENERAL) { + if (desired_circuit_purpose == CIRCUIT_PURPOSE_C_GENERAL) { + /* We just caused a circuit to get built because of this stream. + * If this stream has caused a _lot_ of circuits to be built, that's + * a bad sign: we should tell the user. */ + if (conn->num_circuits_launched < NUM_CIRCUITS_LAUNCHED_THRESHOLD && + ++conn->num_circuits_launched == NUM_CIRCUITS_LAUNCHED_THRESHOLD) + log_warn(LD_BUG, "The application request to %s:%d has launched " + "%d circuits without finding one it likes.", + escaped_safe_str_client(conn->socks_request->address), + conn->socks_request->port, + conn->num_circuits_launched); + } else { /* help predict this next time */ rep_hist_note_used_internal(time(NULL), need_uptime, 1); if (circ) { diff --git a/src/or/or.h b/src/or/or.h index 50a1223..7d354c8 100644 --- a/src/or/or.h +++ b/src/or/or.h @@ -1151,6 +1151,13 @@ typedef struct edge_connection_t { * already retried several times. */ uint8_t num_socks_retries; +#define NUM_CIRCUITS_LAUNCHED_THRESHOLD 10 + /** Number of times we've launched a circuit to handle this stream. If + * it gets too high, that could indicate an inconsistency between our + * "launch a circuit to handle this stream" logic and our "attach our + * stream to one of the available circuits" logic. */ + unsigned int num_circuits_launched:4; + /** True iff this connection is for a DNS request only. */ unsigned int is_dns_request:1;

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] When cannibalizing a circuit, make sure it has no ExcludeNodes on it
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit 6afad6b691d577fba2fe88f2fe9ed76a2f80002d Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)torproject.org> Date: Sun Apr 3 19:58:28 2011 -0400 When cannibalizing a circuit, make sure it has no ExcludeNodes on it This could happen if StrictNodes was 0 and we were forced to pick an excluded node as the last hop of the circuit. --- src/or/circuitlist.c | 19 ++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/circuitlist.c b/src/or/circuitlist.c index 42073fb..ce324ca 100644 --- a/src/or/circuitlist.c +++ b/src/or/circuitlist.c @@ -923,6 +923,7 @@ circuit_find_to_cannibalize(uint8_t purpose, extend_info_t *info, int need_uptime = (flags & CIRCLAUNCH_NEED_UPTIME) != 0; int need_capacity = (flags & CIRCLAUNCH_NEED_CAPACITY) != 0; int internal = (flags & CIRCLAUNCH_IS_INTERNAL) != 0; + or_options_t *options = get_options(); /* Make sure we're not trying to create a onehop circ by * cannibalization. */ @@ -933,11 +934,6 @@ circuit_find_to_cannibalize(uint8_t purpose, extend_info_t *info, "capacity %d, internal %d", purpose, need_uptime, need_capacity, internal); - /* XXX022-1090 We should make sure that when we cannibalize a circuit, it - * contains no excluded nodes. (This is possible if StrictNodes is 0, and - * we thought we needed to use an excluded exit node for, say, a directory - * operation.) -NM */ - for (_circ=global_circuitlist; _circ; _circ = _circ->next) { if (CIRCUIT_IS_ORIGIN(_circ) && _circ->state == CIRCUIT_STATE_OPEN && @@ -966,6 +962,19 @@ circuit_find_to_cannibalize(uint8_t purpose, extend_info_t *info, hop=hop->next; } while (hop!=circ->cpath); } + if (options->ExcludeNodes) { + /* Make sure no existing nodes in the circuit are excluded for + * general use. (This may be possible if StrictNodes is 0, and we + * thought we needed to use an otherwise excluded node for, say, a + * directory operation.) */ + crypt_path_t *hop = circ->cpath; + do { + if (routerset_contains_extendinfo(options->ExcludeNodes, + hop->extend_info)) + goto next; + hop = hop->next; + } while (hop != circ->cpath); + } if (!best || (best->build_state->need_uptime && !need_uptime)) best = circ; next: ;

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] Revise the manpage to contain the actual intended *Nodes behavior
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit 2ac768e89f16230d9af1ea5dd84856568d4ceeef Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)torproject.org> Date: Thu Mar 10 18:25:51 2011 -0500 Revise the manpage to contain the actual intended *Nodes behavior This is a squashed version of my former desired_nodes_behavior branch that we used to specify the intended results wrt bug 1090. --- doc/tor.1.txt | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 1 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/tor.1.txt b/doc/tor.1.txt index f1734d2..866a702 100644 --- a/doc/tor.1.txt +++ b/doc/tor.1.txt @@ -489,32 +489,74 @@ The following options are useful only for clients (that is, if **ExcludeNodes** __node__,__node__,__...__:: A list of identity fingerprints, nicknames, country codes and address - patterns of nodes to never use when building a circuit. (Example: - ExcludeNodes SlowServer, $ EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, \{cc}, 255.254.0.0/8) + patterns of nodes to avoid when building a circuit. + (Example: + ExcludeNodes SlowServer, $ EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, \{cc}, 255.254.0.0/8) + ++ + By default, this option is treated as a preference that Tor is allowed + to override in order to keep working. + For example, if you try to connect to a hidden service, + but you have excluded all of the hidden service's introduction points, + Tor will connect to one of them anyway. If you do not want this + behavior, set the StrictNodes option (documented below). + ++ + Note also that if you are a relay, this (and the other node selection + options below) only affects your own circuits that Tor builds for you. + Clients can still build circuits through you to any node. Controllers + can tell Tor to build circuits through any node. + **ExcludeExitNodes** __node__,__node__,__...__:: A list of identity fingerprints, nicknames, country codes and address - patterns of nodes to never use when picking an exit node. Note that any + patterns of nodes to never use when picking an exit node---that is, a + node that delivers traffic for you outside the Tor network. Note that any node listed in ExcludeNodes is automatically considered to be part of this - list. + list too. See also the caveats on the "ExitNodes" option below -**EntryNodes** __node__,__node__,__...__:: - A list of identity fingerprints, nicknames and address - patterns of nodes to use for the first hop in normal circuits. These are - treated only as preferences unless StrictNodes (see below) is also set. **ExitNodes** __node__,__node__,__...__:: A list of identity fingerprints, nicknames, country codes and address - patterns of nodes to use for the last hop in normal exit circuits. These - are treated only as preferences unless StrictNodes (see below) is also set. + patterns of nodes to use as exit node---that is, a + node that delivers traffic for you outside the Tor network. + ++ + Note that if you list too few nodes here, or if you exclude too many exit + nodes with ExcludeExitNodes, you can degrade functionality. For example, + if none of the exits you list allows traffic on port 80 or 443, you won't + be able to browse the web. + ++ + Note also that not every circuit is used to deliver traffic outside of + the Tor network. It is normal to see non-exit circuits (such as those + used to connect to hidden services, those that do directory fetches, + those used for self-tests, and so on) that end at a non-exit node. To + keep a node from being used entirely, see ExcludeNodes and StrictNodes. + ++ + The ExcludeNodes option overrides this option: any node listed in both + ExitNodes and ExcludeNodes is treated as excluded. + ++ + The .exit address notation, if enabled, overrides this option. + +**EntryNodes** __node__,__node__,__...__:: + A list of identity fingerprints and nicknames of nodes + to use for the first hop in your normal circuits. (Country codes and + address patterns are not yet supported.) This includes all + circuits except for direct connections to directory servers. The Bridge + option overrides this option; if you have configured bridges and + UseBridges is 1, the Bridges are used as your entry nodes. + ++ + The ExcludeNodes option overrides this option: any node listed in both + EntryNodes and ExcludeNodes is treated as excluded. **StrictNodes** **0**|**1**:: - If 1 and EntryNodes config option is set, Tor will never use any nodes - besides those listed in EntryNodes for the first hop of a normal circuit. - If 1 and ExitNodes config option is set, Tor will never use any nodes - besides those listed in ExitNodes for the last hop of a normal exit - circuit. Note that Tor might still use these nodes for non-exit circuits - such as one-hop directory fetches or hidden service support circuits. + If StrictNodes is set to 1, Tor will treat the ExcludeNodes option as a + requirement to follow for all the circuits you generate, even if doing so + will break functionality for you. If StrictNodes is set to 0, Tor will + still try to avoid nodes in the ExcludeNodes list, but it will err on the + side of avoiding unexpected errors. Specifically, StrictNodes 0 tells + Tor that it is okay to use an excluded node when it is *necessary* to + perform self-tests, connect to + a hidden service, provide a hidden service to a client, fulfill a .exit + request, upload directory information, or download directory information. + (Default: 0) **FascistFirewall** **0**|**1**:: If 1, Tor will only create outgoing connections to ORs running on ports

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] Correct the behavior of .exit with ExcludeNodes, StrictNodes, etc.
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit ad78bafb71fbd66e83b29aba612d17f7d03e575b Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)torproject.org> Date: Sun Apr 3 17:08:59 2011 -0400 Correct the behavior of .exit with ExcludeNodes, StrictNodes, etc. ExcludeExitNodes foo now means that foo.exit doesn't work. If StrictNodes is set, then ExcludeNodes foo also overrides foo.exit. foo.exit , however, still works even if foo is not listed in ExitNodes. --- src/or/connection_edge.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/connection_edge.c b/src/or/connection_edge.c index 1f5eb70..f435976 100644 --- a/src/or/connection_edge.c +++ b/src/or/connection_edge.c @@ -1497,9 +1497,13 @@ connection_ap_handshake_rewrite_and_attach(edge_connection_t *conn, hostname_type_t addresstype; or_options_t *options = get_options(); struct in_addr addr_tmp; + /* We set this to true if this is an address we should automatically + * remap to a local address in VirtualAddrNetwork */ int automap = 0; char orig_address[MAX_SOCKS_ADDR_LEN]; time_t map_expires = TIME_MAX; + /* This will be set to true iff the address starts out as a non-.exit + address, and we remap it to one because of an entry in the addressmap. */ int remapped_to_exit = 0; time_t now = time(NULL); @@ -1610,18 +1614,24 @@ connection_ap_handshake_rewrite_and_attach(edge_connection_t *conn, /* foo.exit -- modify conn->chosen_exit_node to specify the exit * node, and conn->address to hold only the address portion. */ char *s = strrchr(socks->address,'.'); + + /* If StrictNodes is not set, then .exit overrides ExcludeNodes. */ + routerset_t *excludeset = options->StrictNodes ? + options->_ExcludeExitNodesUnion : options->ExcludeExitNodes; + /*XXX023 make this a node_t. */ + routerinfo_t *router; + tor_assert(!automap); if (s) { + /* The address was of the form "(stuff).(name).exit */ if (s[1] != '\0') { - /* XXX022-1090 we should look this up as a relay and see if it's - * in our excluded set, and refuse it here if so. But first, - * figure out what's up with this 'remapped_to_exit' business - * and whether that needs careful treatment. -RD */ conn->chosen_exit_name = tor_strdup(s+1); + router = router_get_by_nickname(conn->chosen_exit_name, 1); if (remapped_to_exit) /* 5 tries before it expires the addressmap */ conn->chosen_exit_retries = TRACKHOSTEXITS_RETRIES; *s = 0; } else { + /* Oops, the address was (stuff)..exit. That's not okay. */ log_warn(LD_APP,"Malformed exit address '%s.exit'. Refusing.", safe_str_client(socks->address)); control_event_client_status(LOG_WARN, "SOCKS_BAD_HOSTNAME HOSTNAME=%s", @@ -1630,23 +1640,33 @@ connection_ap_handshake_rewrite_and_attach(edge_connection_t *conn, return -1; } } else { - routerinfo_t *r; + /* It looks like they just asked for "foo.exit". */ conn->chosen_exit_name = tor_strdup(socks->address); - r = router_get_by_nickname(conn->chosen_exit_name, 1); - *socks->address = 0; - if (r && (!options->_ExcludeExitNodesUnion || - !routerset_contains_router(options->_ExcludeExitNodesUnion, - r))) { - strlcpy(socks->address, r->address, sizeof(socks->address)); - } else { - log_warn(LD_APP, - "%s relay in exit address '%s.exit'. Refusing.", - r ? "Excluded" : "Unrecognized", - safe_str_client(socks->address)); - connection_mark_unattached_ap(conn, END_STREAM_REASON_TORPROTOCOL); - return -1; + router = router_get_by_nickname(conn->chosen_exit_name, 1); + if (router) { + *socks->address = 0; + strlcpy(socks->address, router->address, sizeof(socks->address)); } } + /* Now make sure that the chosen exit exists... */ + if (!router) { + log_warn(LD_APP, + "Unrecognized relay in exit address '%s.exit'. Refusing.", + safe_str_client(socks->address)); + connection_mark_unattached_ap(conn, END_STREAM_REASON_TORPROTOCOL); + return -1; + } + /* ...and make sure that it isn't excluded. */ + if (routerset_contains_router(excludeset, router)) { + log_warn(LD_APP, + "Excluded relay in exit address '%s.exit'. Refusing.", + safe_str_client(socks->address)); + connection_mark_unattached_ap(conn, END_STREAM_REASON_TORPROTOCOL); + return -1; + } + /* XXXX022-1090 Should we also allow foo.bar.exit if ExitNodes is set and + Bar is not listed in it? I say yes, but our revised manpage branch + implies no. */ } if (addresstype != ONION_HOSTNAME) {

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] better user-facing warnings for unexpected last hops
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit b8b557dcb2bf719976858589345f08fffbab13e3 Author: Roger Dingledine <arma(a)torproject.org> Date: Tue Apr 26 22:48:00 2011 -0400 better user-facing warnings for unexpected last hops these still aren't perfect, but we won't know how to correct them until we start experiencing surprised users. --- src/or/circuitbuild.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/circuitbuild.c b/src/or/circuitbuild.c index 6401e71..90572d5 100644 --- a/src/or/circuitbuild.c +++ b/src/or/circuitbuild.c @@ -2878,7 +2878,6 @@ warn_if_last_router_excluded(origin_circuit_t *circ, const extend_info_t *exit) or_options_t *options = get_options(); routerset_t *rs = options->ExcludeNodes; const char *description; - int domain = LD_CIRC; uint8_t purpose = circ->_base.purpose; if (circ->build_state->onehop_tunnel) @@ -2914,7 +2913,6 @@ warn_if_last_router_excluded(origin_circuit_t *circ, const extend_info_t *exit) case CIRCUIT_PURPOSE_C_REND_READY_INTRO_ACKED: case CIRCUIT_PURPOSE_C_REND_JOINED: description = "chosen rendezvous point"; - domain = LD_BUG; break; case CIRCUIT_PURPOSE_CONTROLLER: rs = options->_ExcludeExitNodesUnion; @@ -2924,18 +2922,24 @@ warn_if_last_router_excluded(origin_circuit_t *circ, const extend_info_t *exit) if (routerset_contains_extendinfo(rs, exit)) { /* We should never get here if StrictNodes is set to 1. */ - if (options->StrictNodes) - log_warn(LD_BUG, "Using an excluded node with StrictNodes set. " - "Please report the following log message to the " - "developers."); - log_fn(LOG_WARN, domain, "Using %s '%s' which is listed in " - "ExcludeNodes%s, because no other options were available. To " - "prevent this, set the StrictNodes configuration option." - "(Circuit purpose is %d)", - description,exit->nickname, - rs==options->ExcludeNodes?"":" or ExcludeExitNodes", - (int)purpose); - circuit_log_path(LOG_WARN, domain, circ); + if (options->StrictNodes) { + log_warn(LD_BUG, "Using %s '%s' which is listed in ExcludeNodes%s, " + "even though StrictNodes is set. Please report. " + "(Circuit purpose: %s)", + description, exit->nickname, + rs==options->ExcludeNodes?"":" or ExcludeExitNodes", + circuit_purpose_to_string(purpose)); + } else { + log_warn(LD_CIRC, "Using %s '%s' which is listed in " + "ExcludeNodes%s, because no better options were available. To " + "prevent this (and possibly break your Tor functionality), " + "set the StrictNodes configuration option. " + "(Circuit purpose: %s)", + description, exit->nickname, + rs==options->ExcludeNodes?"":" or ExcludeExitNodes", + circuit_purpose_to_string(purpose)); + } + circuit_log_path(LOG_WARN, LD_CIRC, circ); } return;

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] Add a big changelog entry for bug 1090 fixes
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit c49f660c1a9f196c8cbb4863bb377bdb6e642539 Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)torproject.org> Date: Wed Apr 27 13:33:38 2011 -0400 Add a big changelog entry for bug 1090 fixes --- changes/bug1090-general | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/changes/bug1090-general b/changes/bug1090-general new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4656315 --- /dev/null +++ b/changes/bug1090-general @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ + o Major features and bugfixes (node selection) + + - Revise and unify the meaning of the ExitNodes, EntryNodes, + ExcludeEntryNodes, ExcludeExitNodes, ExcludeNodes, and + StrictNodes options. Previously, we had been ambiguous in + describing what counted as an "exit" node, and what operations + exactly "StrictNodes 0" would permit. This created confusion + when people saw nodes built through unexpected circuits, and + made it hard to tell real bugs from surprises. We now stipulate + that the intended behavior is: + + . "Exit", in the context of ExitNodes and ExcludeExitNodes, + means a node that delivers user traffic outside the Tor + network. + . "Entry", in the context of EntryNodes and ExcludeEntryNodes, + means a node used as the first hop of a multihop circuit: + it doesn't include direct connections to directory servers. + . "ExcludeNodes" applies to all nodes. + . "StrictNodes" changes the behavior of ExcludeNodes only. + When StrictNodes is set, Tor should avoid all nodes listed + in ExcludeNodes, even when it will make user requests + fail. When StrictNodes is *not* set, then Tor should + follow ExcludeNodes whenever it can, except when it must + use an excluded node to perform self-tests, connect to a + hidden service, provide a hidden service, fulfill a .exit + request, upload directory information, or fetch directory + information. + + Collectively, the changes to implement the behavior are a fix for + bug 1090. + + - ExcludeNodes now takes precedence over EntryNodes and ExitNodes: + if a node is listed in both, it's treated as excluded. + + - ExcludeNodes now applies to directory nodes: as a preference if + StrictNodes is 0, or an absolute requirement if StrictNodes is 1. + (Don't exclude all the directory authorities and set StrictNodes + to 1 unless you really want your Tor to break.) + + - ExcludeNodes and ExcludeExitNodes now override exit enclaving. + + - ExcludeExitNodes now overrides .exit requests. + + - We don't use bridges from ExcludeNodes. + + - When StrictNodes is 1: + . We now apply ExcludeNodes to hidden service introduction points + and to rendezvous points selected by hidden service users. + This can make your hidden service less reliable: use it with + caution! + . If we have used ExcludeNodes on ourself, do not try self-tests. + . If we have excluded all the directory authorities, we will + not even try to upload our descriptor if we're a server. + . Do not honor .exit requests to an excluded node. + + - Remove a misfeature that caused us to ignore the Fast/Stable flags + if ExitNodes was set. Bugfix on 0.2.2.7-alpha. + + - When the set of permitted nodes changes, we now remove any + mappings introduced via TrackExitHosts to now-excluded nodes. + Bugfix on 0.1.0.1-rc. + + - We never cannibalize a circuit that had excluded nodes on it, + even if StrictNodes is 0. Bugfix on 0.1.0.1-rc. + + - Improve log messages related to excluded nodes. + + - Revert a change where we would be laxer about attaching streams to + circuits than when building the circuits. This was meant to + prevent a set of bugs where streams were never attachable, but our + improved code here should make this unnecessary. Bugfix on + 0.2.2.7-alpha. +

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] revert most of ef81649d2fc
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit f962dda8c188ebe17be1ad7d6548f303b6425943 Author: Roger Dingledine <arma(a)torproject.org> Date: Tue Apr 26 19:55:34 2011 -0400 revert most of ef81649d2fc Now we believe it to be the case that we never build a circuit for our stream that has an unsuitable exit, so we'll never need to use such a circuit. The risk is that we have some code that builds the circuit, but now we refuse to use it, meaning we just build a bazillion circuits and ignore them all. --- src/or/circuitbuild.c | 2 +- src/or/circuituse.c | 18 ++++++++++++------ src/or/connection_edge.c | 19 ++----------------- src/or/connection_edge.h | 3 +-- 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/circuitbuild.c b/src/or/circuitbuild.c index b963f1a..6401e71 100644 --- a/src/or/circuitbuild.c +++ b/src/or/circuitbuild.c @@ -2728,7 +2728,7 @@ choose_good_exit_server_general(routerlist_t *dir, int need_uptime, { if (!ap_stream_wants_exit_attention(conn)) continue; /* Skip everything but APs in CIRCUIT_WAIT */ - if (connection_ap_can_use_exit(TO_EDGE_CONN(conn), router, 1)) { + if (connection_ap_can_use_exit(TO_EDGE_CONN(conn), router)) { ++n_supported[i]; // log_fn(LOG_DEBUG,"%s is supported. n_supported[%d] now %d.", // router->nickname, i, n_supported[i]); diff --git a/src/or/circuituse.c b/src/or/circuituse.c index 530941c..cc4a739 100644 --- a/src/or/circuituse.c +++ b/src/or/circuituse.c @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ circuit_is_acceptable(circuit_t *circ, edge_connection_t *conn, return 0; } } - if (exitrouter && !connection_ap_can_use_exit(conn, exitrouter, 0)) { + if (exitrouter && !connection_ap_can_use_exit(conn, exitrouter)) { /* can't exit from this router */ return 0; } @@ -166,6 +166,10 @@ circuit_is_better(circuit_t *a, circuit_t *b, uint8_t purpose) return 1; if (CIRCUIT_IS_ORIGIN(b) && TO_ORIGIN_CIRCUIT(b)->build_state->is_internal) + /* XXX023 what the heck is this internal thing doing here. I + * think we can get rid of it. circuit_is_acceptable() already + * makes sure that is_internal is exactly what we need it to + * be. -RD */ return 1; } break; @@ -511,7 +515,7 @@ circuit_stream_is_being_handled(edge_connection_t *conn, if (exitrouter && (!need_uptime || build_state->need_uptime)) { int ok; if (conn) { - ok = connection_ap_can_use_exit(conn, exitrouter, 0); + ok = connection_ap_can_use_exit(conn, exitrouter); } else { addr_policy_result_t r = compare_addr_to_addr_policy( 0, port, exitrouter->exit_policy); @@ -1291,9 +1295,10 @@ circuit_get_open_circ_or_launch(edge_connection_t *conn, * refactor into a single function? */ routerinfo_t *router = router_get_by_nickname(conn->chosen_exit_name, 1); int opt = conn->chosen_exit_optional; - if (router && !connection_ap_can_use_exit(conn, router, 0)) { + if (router && !connection_ap_can_use_exit(conn, router)) { log_fn(opt ? LOG_INFO : LOG_WARN, LD_APP, - "Requested exit point '%s' would refuse request. %s.", + "Requested exit point '%s' is excluded or " + "would refuse request. %s.", conn->chosen_exit_name, opt ? "Trying others" : "Closing"); if (opt) { conn->chosen_exit_optional = 0; @@ -1611,9 +1616,10 @@ connection_ap_handshake_attach_circuit(edge_connection_t *conn) } return -1; } - if (router && !connection_ap_can_use_exit(conn, router, 0)) { + if (router && !connection_ap_can_use_exit(conn, router)) { log_fn(opt ? LOG_INFO : LOG_WARN, LD_APP, - "Requested exit point '%s' would refuse request. %s.", + "Requested exit point '%s' is excluded or " + "would refuse request. %s.", conn->chosen_exit_name, opt ? "Trying others" : "Closing"); if (opt) { conn->chosen_exit_optional = 0; diff --git a/src/or/connection_edge.c b/src/or/connection_edge.c index 1ee57ab..082cd5f 100644 --- a/src/or/connection_edge.c +++ b/src/or/connection_edge.c @@ -3044,15 +3044,9 @@ connection_edge_is_rendezvous_stream(edge_connection_t *conn) * to exit from it, or 0 if it probably will not allow it. * (We might be uncertain if conn's destination address has not yet been * resolved.) - * - * If excluded_means_no is 1 and Exclude*Nodes is set and excludes - * this relay, return 0. - * XXX022-1090 This StrictNodes business needs more work, a la bug 1090. See - * also git commit ef81649d. */ int -connection_ap_can_use_exit(edge_connection_t *conn, routerinfo_t *exit, - int excluded_means_no) +connection_ap_can_use_exit(edge_connection_t *conn, routerinfo_t *exit) { or_options_t *options = get_options(); @@ -3102,17 +3096,8 @@ connection_ap_can_use_exit(edge_connection_t *conn, routerinfo_t *exit, return 0; } if (options->_ExcludeExitNodesUnion && - (options->StrictNodes || excluded_means_no) && routerset_contains_router(options->_ExcludeExitNodesUnion, exit)) { - /* If we are trying to avoid this node as exit, and we have StrictNodes - * set, then this is not a suitable exit. Refuse it. - * - * If we don't have StrictNodes set, then this function gets called in - * two contexts. First, we've got a circuit open and we want to know - * whether we can use it. In that case, we somehow built this circuit - * despite having the last hop in ExcludeExitNodes, so we should be - * willing to use it. Second, we are evaluating whether this is an - * acceptable exit for a new circuit. In that case, skip it. */ + /* Not a suitable exit. Refuse it. */ return 0; } diff --git a/src/or/connection_edge.h b/src/or/connection_edge.h index c4ae467..70d0dd2 100644 --- a/src/or/connection_edge.h +++ b/src/or/connection_edge.h @@ -47,8 +47,7 @@ int connection_exit_begin_conn(cell_t *cell, circuit_t *circ); int connection_exit_begin_resolve(cell_t *cell, or_circuit_t *circ); void connection_exit_connect(edge_connection_t *conn); int connection_edge_is_rendezvous_stream(edge_connection_t *conn); -int connection_ap_can_use_exit(edge_connection_t *conn, routerinfo_t *exit, - int excluded_means_no); +int connection_ap_can_use_exit(edge_connection_t *conn, routerinfo_t *exit); void connection_ap_expire_beginning(void); void connection_ap_attach_pending(void); void connection_ap_fail_onehop(const char *failed_digest,

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] Do not try to download descriptors for bridges in ExcludeNodes.
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit b59a289365169cca228566826f19838403320cb2 Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)torproject.org> Date: Sun Apr 3 18:12:26 2011 -0400 Do not try to download descriptors for bridges in ExcludeNodes. --- src/or/circuitbuild.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/circuitbuild.c b/src/or/circuitbuild.c index 714d636..4832cae 100644 --- a/src/or/circuitbuild.c +++ b/src/or/circuitbuild.c @@ -4539,6 +4539,24 @@ bridge_add_from_config(const tor_addr_t *addr, uint16_t port, char *digest) smartlist_add(bridge_list, b); } +/** Return true iff routerset contains the bridge bridge. */ +static int +routerset_contains_bridge(const routerset_t *routerset, + const bridge_info_t *bridge) +{ + int result; + extend_info_t *extinfo; + tor_assert(bridge); + if (!routerset) + return 0; + + extinfo = extend_info_alloc( + NULL, bridge->identity, NULL, &bridge->addr, bridge->port); + result = routerset_contains_extendinfo(routerset, extinfo); + extend_info_free(extinfo); + return result; +} + /** If digest is one of our known bridges, return it. */ static bridge_info_t * find_bridge_by_digest(const char *digest) @@ -4557,6 +4575,7 @@ static void launch_direct_bridge_descriptor_fetch(bridge_info_t *bridge) { char *address; + or_options_t *options = get_options(); if (connection_get_by_type_addr_port_purpose( CONN_TYPE_DIR, &bridge->addr, bridge->port, @@ -4564,7 +4583,13 @@ launch_direct_bridge_descriptor_fetch(bridge_info_t *bridge) return; /* it's already on the way */ address = tor_dup_addr(&bridge->addr); - /* XXX022-1090 if we ExcludeNodes this bridge, should this step fail? -RD */ + if (routerset_contains_bridge(options->ExcludeNodes, bridge)) { + download_status_mark_impossible(&bridge->fetch_status); + log_warn(LD_APP, "Not using bridge at %s: it is in ExcludeNodes.", + safe_str_client(fmt_addr(&bridge->addr))); + return; + } + directory_initiate_command(address, &bridge->addr, bridge->port, 0, 0, /* does not matter */ @@ -4605,6 +4630,12 @@ fetch_bridge_descriptors(or_options_t *options, time_t now) if (!download_status_is_ready(&bridge->fetch_status, now, IMPOSSIBLE_TO_DOWNLOAD)) continue; /* don't bother, no need to retry yet */ + if (routerset_contains_bridge(options->ExcludeNodes, bridge)) { + download_status_mark_impossible(&bridge->fetch_status); + log_warn(LD_APP, "Not using bridge at %s: it is in ExcludeNodes.", + safe_str_client(fmt_addr(&bridge->addr))); + continue; + } /* schedule another fetch as if this one will fail, in case it does */ download_status_failed(&bridge->fetch_status, 0);

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] Note another place that we need to fix a 1090 issue.
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit ed7c267743f2471a5a16c5ec437efda665f4c6af Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)torproject.org> Date: Sun Apr 3 17:08:29 2011 -0400 Note another place that we need to fix a 1090 issue. --- src/or/connection_edge.c | 3 +++ 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/connection_edge.c b/src/or/connection_edge.c index 4c74426..1f5eb70 100644 --- a/src/or/connection_edge.c +++ b/src/or/connection_edge.c @@ -789,6 +789,9 @@ addressmap_ent_remove(const char *address, addressmap_entry_t *ent) static void clear_trackexithost_mappings(const char *exitname) { + /* XXXX022-1090 We need a variant of this that clears all mappings no longer + permitted because of changes to the ExcludeNodes, ExitNodes, or + ExcludeExitNodes settings. */ char *suffix; size_t suffix_len; if (!addressmap || !exitname)

1 0