mirrors/arti.git/crates/tor-cell/src, branch arti-v0.2.0

tor-proto: add a backend to detect reported clock skew.

2022-03-23T12:24:36Z

NETINFO cells, which are sent in every handshake, may contain timestamps. This patch adds an accessor for the timestamp in the Netinfo messages, and teaches the tor-proto code how to compute the minimum clock skew in the code. The computation isn't terribly precise, but it doesn't need to be: Tor should work fine if your clock is accurate to within a few hours. This patch also notes a Y2038 problem in the protocol: see torspec#80. Part of #405.

Merge branch 'educe-traits' into 'main'

2022-03-04T18:00:17Z

Replace many manual trait impls with use of educe See merge request tpo/core/arti!375

Move skip_fmt into tor-basic-utils

2022-03-04T11:45:24Z

Code motion and the minimal mechanical changes. As per https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/merge_requests/375#note_2783078

Replace manual Default impl with educe in tor-cell

2022-03-02T18:06:37Z

Replace manual Debug impl with educe in tor-cell

2022-03-02T18:03:00Z

Replace manual Default impl with std derive in tor-cell

2022-03-02T18:01:08Z

Merge branch 'clippy-allow-arc-clone' into 'main'

2022-03-01T20:38:05Z

Disable clippy::clone_on_ref_ptr See merge request tpo/core/arti!352

Disable clippy::clone_on_ref_ptr

2022-02-24T18:15:44Z

This lint is IMO inherently ill-conceived. I have looked for the reasons why this might be thought to be a good idea and there were basically two (and they are sort of contradictory): I. "Calling ‘.clone()` on an Rc, Arc, or Weak can obscure the fact that only the pointer is being cloned, not the underlying data." This is the wording from https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/v0.0.212/#clone_on_ref_ptr It is a bit terse; we are left to infer why it is a bad idea to obscure this fact. It seems to me that if it is bad to obscure some fact, that must be because the fact is a hazard. But why would it be a hazard to not copy the underlying data ? In other languages, faliing to copy the underlying data is a serious correctness hazard. There is a whose class of bugs where things were not copied, and then mutated and/or reused in multiple places in ways that were not what the programmer intended. In my experience, this is a very common bug when writing Python and Javascript. I'm told it's common in golang too. But in Rust this bug is much much harder to write. The data inside an Arc is immutable. To have this bug you'd have use interior mutability - ie mess around with Mutex or RefCell. That provides a good barrier to these kind of accidents. II. "The reason for writing Rc::clone and Arc::clone [is] to make it clear that only the pointer is being cloned, as opposed to the underlying data. The former is always fast, while the latter can be very expensive depending on what is being cloned." This is the reasoning found here https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/2048 This is saying that *not* using Arc::clone is hazardous. Specifically, that a deep clone is a performance hazard. But for this argument, the lint is precisely backwards. It's linting the "good" case and asking for it to be written in a more explicit way; while the supposedly bad case can be written conveniently. Also, many objects (in our codebase, and in all the libraries we use) that are Clone are in fact simply handles. They contain Arc(s) (or similar) and are cheap to clone. Indeed, that is the usual case. It does not make sense to distinguish in the syntax we use to clone such a handle, whether the handle is a transparent Arc, or an opaque struct containing one or more other handles. Forcing Arc::clone to be written as such makes for code churn when a type is changed from Arc to Something: Clone, or vice versa.

Give specific error kinds to different END reasons

2022-02-23T14:35:28Z

Closes #360.

Remove clippy::needless_borrow exception in CI.

2022-02-20T14:09:38Z

This exception is no longer necessary now that the underlying CI bug is fixed.