commit 88666d0482c235f407be1edf6e89da8c9142b92d Author: Nick Mathewson nickm@torproject.org Date: Thu Jun 29 10:09:06 2017 -0400

Adjust unit tests to account for fix to bug 22753.

Our mock network put all the guards on the same IPv4 address, which doesn't fly when we start applying EnforceDistinctSubnets. So in this commit, I disable EnforceDistinctSubnets when running the old guard_restriction_t test.

This commit also adds a regression test for #22753. --- src/test/test_entrynodes.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/test/test_entrynodes.c b/src/test/test_entrynodes.c index 95c8f6c..e215c60 100644 --- a/src/test/test_entrynodes.c +++ b/src/test/test_entrynodes.c @@ -121,6 +121,8 @@ big_fake_network_setup(const struct testcase_t *testcase)

n->is_running = n->is_valid = n->is_fast = n->is_stable = 1;

+ /* Note: all these guards have the same address, so you'll need to + * disable EnforceDistinctSubnets when a restriction is applied. */ n->rs->addr = 0x04020202; n->rs->or_port = 1234; n->rs->is_v2_dir = 1; @@ -1846,14 +1848,17 @@ test_entry_guard_select_for_circuit_confirmed(void *arg) tt_uint_op(state, OP_EQ, GUARD_CIRC_STATE_USABLE_IF_NO_BETTER_GUARD); tt_i64_op(g2->last_tried_to_connect, OP_EQ, approx_time());

- // If we say that the next confirmed guard in order is excluded, we get - // The one AFTER that. + // If we say that the next confirmed guard in order is excluded, and + // we disable EnforceDistinctSubnets, we get the guard AFTER the + // one we excluded. + get_options_mutable()->EnforceDistinctSubnets = 0; g = smartlist_get(gs->confirmed_entry_guards, smartlist_len(gs->primary_entry_guards)+2); entry_guard_restriction_t rst; memset(&rst, 0, sizeof(rst)); memcpy(rst.exclude_id, g->identity, DIGEST_LEN); g2 = select_entry_guard_for_circuit(gs, GUARD_USAGE_TRAFFIC, &rst, &state); + tt_ptr_op(g2, OP_NE, NULL); tt_ptr_op(g2, OP_NE, g); tt_int_op(g2->confirmed_idx, OP_EQ, smartlist_len(gs->primary_entry_guards)+3); @@ -1873,6 +1878,16 @@ test_entry_guard_select_for_circuit_confirmed(void *arg) tt_assert(g->is_pending); tt_int_op(g->confirmed_idx, OP_EQ, -1);

+ // If we EnforceDistinctSubnets and apply a restriction, we get + // nothing, since we put all of the nodes in the same /16. + // Regression test for bug 22753/TROVE-2017-006. + get_options_mutable()->EnforceDistinctSubnets = 1; + g = smartlist_get(gs->confirmed_entry_guards, 0); + memset(&rst, 0, sizeof(rst)); + memcpy(rst.exclude_id, g->identity, DIGEST_LEN); + g2 = select_entry_guard_for_circuit(gs, GUARD_USAGE_TRAFFIC, &rst, &state); + tt_ptr_op(g2, OP_EQ, NULL); + done: guard_selection_free(gs); }