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

[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] slight tweak on circuit_conforms_to_options
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit 7e2e8074d52f9ace76d98a62d67a4bf781f06c3b Author: Roger Dingledine <arma(a)torproject.org> Date: Fri Mar 11 03:22:53 2011 -0500 slight tweak on circuit_conforms_to_options this function really needs to get a total rewrite (or die) For now, use #if 0 to disable it. --- src/or/circuituse.c | 23 ++++++++++++----------- src/or/circuituse.h | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/circuituse.c b/src/or/circuituse.c index cdf49e3..7b20f7f 100644 --- a/src/or/circuituse.c +++ b/src/or/circuituse.c @@ -242,33 +242,34 @@ circuit_get_best(edge_connection_t *conn, int must_be_open, uint8_t purpose, return best ? TO_ORIGIN_CIRCUIT(best) : NULL; } +#if 0 /** Check whether, according to the policies in options, the * circuit circ makes sense. */ -/* XXXX currently only checks Exclude{Exit}Nodes. It should check more. */ +/* XXXX currently only checks Exclude{Exit}Nodes; it should check more. + * Also, it doesn't have the right definition of an exit circuit. Also, + * it's never called. */ int circuit_conforms_to_options(const origin_circuit_t *circ, const or_options_t *options) { const crypt_path_t *cpath, *cpath_next = NULL; - for (cpath = circ->cpath; cpath && cpath_next != circ->cpath; - cpath = cpath_next) { + /* first check if it includes any excluded nodes */ + for (cpath = circ->cpath; cpath_next != circ->cpath; cpath = cpath_next) { cpath_next = cpath->next; - if (routerset_contains_extendinfo(options->ExcludeNodes, cpath->extend_info)) return 0; + } - if (cpath->next == circ->cpath) { - /* This is apparently the exit node. */ + /* then consider the final hop */ + if (routerset_contains_extendinfo(options->ExcludeExitNodes, + circ->cpath->prev->extend_info)) + return 0; - if (routerset_contains_extendinfo(options->ExcludeExitNodes, - cpath->extend_info)) - return 0; - } - } return 1; } +#endif /** Close all circuits that start at us, aren't open, and were born * at least CircuitBuildTimeout seconds ago. diff --git a/src/or/circuituse.h b/src/or/circuituse.h index a121099..9f393ab 100644 --- a/src/or/circuituse.h +++ b/src/or/circuituse.h @@ -16,8 +16,10 @@ void circuit_expire_building(void); void circuit_remove_handled_ports(smartlist_t *needed_ports); int circuit_stream_is_being_handled(edge_connection_t *conn, uint16_t port, int min); +#if 0 int circuit_conforms_to_options(const origin_circuit_t *circ, const or_options_t *options); +#endif void circuit_build_needed_circs(time_t now); void circuit_detach_stream(circuit_t *circ, edge_connection_t *conn);

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] don't exit enclave to excluded relays
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit 719b5b87dee4910bb3e2d29db6e2012416f60d3d Author: Roger Dingledine <arma(a)torproject.org> Date: Fri Mar 11 03:57:01 2011 -0500 don't exit enclave to excluded relays --- src/or/routerlist.c | 6 +++++- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/routerlist.c b/src/or/routerlist.c index 29e2e96..523596d 100644 --- a/src/or/routerlist.c +++ b/src/or/routerlist.c @@ -1538,6 +1538,8 @@ routerlist_find_my_routerinfo(void) /** Find a router that's up, that has this IP address, and * that allows exit to this address:port, or return NULL if there * isn't a good one. + * Don't exit enclave to excluded relays -- it wouldn't actually + * hurt anything, but this way there are fewer confused users. */ routerinfo_t * router_find_exact_exit_enclave(const char *address, uint16_t port) @@ -1545,6 +1547,7 @@ router_find_exact_exit_enclave(const char *address, uint16_t port) uint32_t addr; struct in_addr in; tor_addr_t a; + or_options_t *options = get_options(); if (!tor_inet_aton(address, &in)) return NULL; /* it's not an IP already */ @@ -1557,7 +1560,8 @@ router_find_exact_exit_enclave(const char *address, uint16_t port) if (router->addr == addr && router->is_running && compare_tor_addr_to_addr_policy(&a, port, router->exit_policy) == - ADDR_POLICY_ACCEPTED) + ADDR_POLICY_ACCEPTED && + !routerset_contains_router(options->_ExcludeExitNodesUnion, router)) return router; }); return NULL;

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] refuse moria1.exit if moria1 is excluded
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit 2b5c39211c2259404ab9bc23a1788b6d529e838f Author: Roger Dingledine <arma(a)torproject.org> Date: Fri Mar 11 05:29:28 2011 -0500 refuse moria1.exit if moria1 is excluded add a note reminding us to do this for foo.moria1.exit if we decide to. --- src/or/connection_edge.c | 11 +++++++++-- 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/connection_edge.c b/src/or/connection_edge.c index fff42be..4c74426 100644 --- a/src/or/connection_edge.c +++ b/src/or/connection_edge.c @@ -1610,6 +1610,10 @@ connection_ap_handshake_rewrite_and_attach(edge_connection_t *conn, tor_assert(!automap); if (s) { 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); if (remapped_to_exit) /* 5 tries before it expires the addressmap */ conn->chosen_exit_retries = TRACKHOSTEXITS_RETRIES; @@ -1627,11 +1631,14 @@ connection_ap_handshake_rewrite_and_attach(edge_connection_t *conn, conn->chosen_exit_name = tor_strdup(socks->address); r = router_get_by_nickname(conn->chosen_exit_name, 1); *socks->address = 0; - if (r) { + if (r && (!options->_ExcludeExitNodesUnion || + !routerset_contains_router(options->_ExcludeExitNodesUnion, + r))) { strlcpy(socks->address, r->address, sizeof(socks->address)); } else { log_warn(LD_APP, - "Unrecognized server in exit address '%s.exit'. Refusing.", + "%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;

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] Note a slightly less likely way to violate ExcludeNodes
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit e4689d840266088739eee39e9bef84e13c988ce9 Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)torproject.org> Date: Mon Mar 28 16:51:00 2011 -0400 Note a slightly less likely way to violate ExcludeNodes --- src/or/circuitlist.c | 5 +++++ 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/circuitlist.c b/src/or/circuitlist.c index d11b457..42073fb 100644 --- a/src/or/circuitlist.c +++ b/src/or/circuitlist.c @@ -933,6 +933,11 @@ 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 &&

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] note another case where strictnodes is considered for exits
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit bcea155ce0999d19b596a24edd359d1fc0dbe380 Author: Roger Dingledine <arma(a)torproject.org> Date: Fri Mar 11 04:36:24 2011 -0500 note another case where strictnodes is considered for exits --- src/or/connection_edge.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/connection_edge.c b/src/or/connection_edge.c index 72e2c8a..fff42be 100644 --- a/src/or/connection_edge.c +++ b/src/or/connection_edge.c @@ -2969,6 +2969,8 @@ connection_edge_is_rendezvous_stream(edge_connection_t *conn) * * 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,

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] Add an XXX022-1090 to note consider_exit_fmily b0rkenness
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit affdec8d044513fb87a6dd8931be49974326e8e7 Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)torproject.org> Date: Fri Mar 25 15:02:37 2011 -0400 Add an XXX022-1090 to note consider_exit_fmily b0rkenness --- src/or/circuitbuild.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/circuitbuild.c b/src/or/circuitbuild.c index 4fa87c0..b6627a0 100644 --- a/src/or/circuitbuild.c +++ b/src/or/circuitbuild.c @@ -4142,6 +4142,8 @@ choose_random_entry(cpath_build_state_t *state) /* still no? if we're using bridges, * and our chosen exit is in the same family as all our * bridges, then be flexible about families. */ + /* XXXX022-1090 This is probably not what people want. Better to choose + * a new exit. */ consider_exit_family = 0; goto retry; }

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] three more cases where maybe we want to exclude
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit 5710ea64757cf0b36ab6d97409bbb9213116f949 Author: Roger Dingledine <arma(a)torproject.org> Date: Fri Mar 11 06:19:15 2011 -0500 three more cases where maybe we want to exclude --- src/or/circuitbuild.c | 1 + src/or/router.c | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/circuitbuild.c b/src/or/circuitbuild.c index b8a82e8..4fa87c0 100644 --- a/src/or/circuitbuild.c +++ b/src/or/circuitbuild.c @@ -4570,6 +4570,7 @@ 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 */ directory_initiate_command(address, &bridge->addr, bridge->port, 0, 0, /* does not matter */ diff --git a/src/or/router.c b/src/or/router.c index c15b9b2..6993e1e 100644 --- a/src/or/router.c +++ b/src/or/router.c @@ -857,6 +857,7 @@ consider_testing_reachability(int test_or, int test_dir) log_info(LD_CIRC, "Testing %s of my ORPort: %s:%d.", !orport_reachable ? "reachability" : "bandwidth", me->address, me->or_port); + /* XXX022-1090 If we ExcludeNodes ourself, should this fail? -RD */ circuit_launch_by_router(CIRCUIT_PURPOSE_TESTING, me, CIRCLAUNCH_NEED_CAPACITY|CIRCLAUNCH_IS_INTERNAL); } @@ -867,6 +868,7 @@ consider_testing_reachability(int test_or, int test_dir) CONN_TYPE_DIR, &addr, me->dir_port, DIR_PURPOSE_FETCH_SERVERDESC)) { /* ask myself, via tor, for my server descriptor. */ + /* XXX022-1090 If we ExcludeNodes ourself, should this fail? -RD */ directory_initiate_command(me->address, &addr, me->or_port, me->dir_port, 0, /* does not matter */

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] If we're excluded, and StrictNodes is set, do not do self-tests.
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit ca74badbe95be77bd990c9c4f9c1b26052d4159e Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)torproject.org> Date: Mon Mar 28 14:14:45 2011 -0400 If we're excluded, and StrictNodes is set, do not do self-tests. --- src/or/router.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/router.c b/src/or/router.c index 6993e1e..64cb079 100644 --- a/src/or/router.c +++ b/src/or/router.c @@ -850,14 +850,33 @@ consider_testing_reachability(int test_or, int test_dir) routerinfo_t *me = router_get_my_routerinfo(); int orport_reachable = check_whether_orport_reachable(); tor_addr_t addr; + or_options_t *options = get_options(); if (!me) return; + if (routerset_contains_router(options->ExcludeNodes, me) && + options->StrictNodes) { + /* If we've excluded ourself, and StrictNodes is set, we can't test + * ourself. */ + if (test_or || test_dir) { +#define SELF_EXCLUDED_WARN_INTERVAL 3600 + static ratelim_t warning_limit=RATELIM_INIT(SELF_EXCLUDED_WARN_INTERVAL); + char *msg; + if ((msg = rate_limit_log(&warning_limit, approx_time()))) { + log_warn(LD_CIRC, "Can't peform self-tests for this relay: we have " + "listed ourself in ExcludeNodes, and StrictNodes is set. " + "We will cannot learn whether we are usable, and will not " + "be able to advertise ourself.%s", msg); + tor_free(msg); + } + } + return; + } + if (test_or && (!orport_reachable || !circuit_enough_testing_circs())) { log_info(LD_CIRC, "Testing %s of my ORPort: %s:%d.", !orport_reachable ? "reachability" : "bandwidth", me->address, me->or_port); - /* XXX022-1090 If we ExcludeNodes ourself, should this fail? -RD */ circuit_launch_by_router(CIRCUIT_PURPOSE_TESTING, me, CIRCLAUNCH_NEED_CAPACITY|CIRCLAUNCH_IS_INTERNAL); } @@ -868,7 +887,6 @@ consider_testing_reachability(int test_or, int test_dir) CONN_TYPE_DIR, &addr, me->dir_port, DIR_PURPOSE_FETCH_SERVERDESC)) { /* ask myself, via tor, for my server descriptor. */ - /* XXX022-1090 If we ExcludeNodes ourself, should this fail? -RD */ directory_initiate_command(me->address, &addr, me->or_port, me->dir_port, 0, /* does not matter */

1 0

[tor/release-0.2.2] the new entrynodes behavior is always strict
by arma＠torproject.org 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

commit 5d12495d982d076b74ca2c0c88b78b00d2810e71 Author: Roger Dingledine <arma(a)torproject.org> Date: Fri Mar 11 04:21:25 2011 -0500 the new entrynodes behavior is always strict --- src/or/circuitbuild.c | 36 +++++++++++------------------------- 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/or/circuitbuild.c b/src/or/circuitbuild.c index ebbda21..86406cb 100644 --- a/src/or/circuitbuild.c +++ b/src/or/circuitbuild.c @@ -4006,14 +4006,10 @@ entry_guards_prepend_from_config(or_options_t *options) SMARTLIST_FOREACH(entry_routers, routerinfo_t *, ri, { add_an_entry_guard(ri, 0); }); - /* Finally, the remaining previously configured guards that are not in - * EntryNodes, unless we're strict in which case we drop them */ - if (options->StrictNodes) { - SMARTLIST_FOREACH(old_entry_guards_not_on_list, entry_guard_t *, e, - entry_guard_free(e)); - } else { - smartlist_add_all(entry_guards, old_entry_guards_not_on_list); - } + /* Finally, free the remaining previously configured guards that are not in + * EntryNodes. */ + SMARTLIST_FOREACH(old_entry_guards_not_on_list, entry_guard_t *, e, + entry_guard_free(e)); smartlist_free(entry_routers); smartlist_free(entry_fps); @@ -4024,7 +4020,7 @@ entry_guards_prepend_from_config(or_options_t *options) /** Return 0 if we're fine adding arbitrary routers out of the * directory to our entry guard list, or return 1 if we have a - * list already and we'd prefer to stick to it. + * list already and we must stick to it. */ int entry_list_is_constrained(or_options_t *options) @@ -4036,18 +4032,6 @@ entry_list_is_constrained(or_options_t *options) return 0; } -/* Are we dead set against changing our entry guard list, or would we - * change it if it means keeping Tor usable? */ -static int -entry_list_is_totally_static(or_options_t *options) -{ - if (options->EntryNodes && options->StrictNodes) - return 1; - if (options->UseBridges) - return 1; - return 0; -} - /** Pick a live (up and listed) entry guard from entry_guards. If * state is non-NULL, this is for a specific circuit -- * make sure not to pick this circuit's exit or any node in the @@ -4092,6 +4076,7 @@ choose_random_entry(cpath_build_state_t *state) continue; /* don't pick the same node for entry and exit */ if (consider_exit_family && smartlist_isin(exit_family, r)) continue; /* avoid relays that are family members of our exit */ +#if 0 /* since EntryNodes is always strict now, this clause is moot */ if (options->EntryNodes && !routerset_contains_router(options->EntryNodes, r)) { /* We've come to the end of our preferred entry nodes. */ @@ -4106,6 +4091,7 @@ choose_random_entry(cpath_build_state_t *state) "No relays from EntryNodes available. Using others."); } } +#endif smartlist_add(live_entry_guards, r); if (!entry->made_contact) { /* Always start with the first not-yet-contacted entry @@ -4131,7 +4117,7 @@ choose_random_entry(cpath_build_state_t *state) } if (smartlist_len(live_entry_guards) < preferred_min) { - if (!entry_list_is_totally_static(options)) { + if (!entry_list_is_constrained(options)) { /* still no? try adding a new entry then */ /* XXX if guard doesn't imply fast and stable, then we need * to tell add_an_entry_guard below what we want, or it might @@ -4157,9 +4143,9 @@ choose_random_entry(cpath_build_state_t *state) goto retry; } if (!r && entry_list_is_constrained(options) && consider_exit_family) { - /* still no? if we're using bridges or have StrictNodes - * set, and our chosen exit is in the same family as all our - * bridges/entry guards, then be flexible about families. */ + /* still no? if we're using bridges, + * and our chosen exit is in the same family as all our + * bridges, then be flexible about families. */ consider_exit_family = 0; goto retry; }

1 0