mirrors/arti.git/crates/tor-linkspec/src/lib.rs, branch arti-v1.0.0

enable doc_auto_cfg feature on every crate when documenting for docs.rs

2022-08-24T16:22:41Z

Final (?) API revisions for tor-linkspec

2022-08-10T14:39:37Z

With this change, each individual identity type becomes optional. The functions that expose them unconditionally are now in a "legacy" trait that only some downstream types are expected to implement. There are new convenience APIs in HasRelayIds: * to return Option<&keytype>, * to see if one identity-set contains another. This commit will break several downstream crates! For the reviewer's convenience, I will put the fixes for those crates into a series of squash! commits on this one. tor-netdir ---------- Revise tor-netdir to accept optional identities. This required some caveats and workarounds about the cases where we have to deal with a key type that the tor-netdir code does not currently recognize at all. If we start to add more identity types in the future, we may well want more internal indices in this code. tor-proto --------- In order to make tor-proto support optional identities, there were fewer changes than I thought. Some "check" functions needed to start looking at "all the ids we want" rather than at "the two known IDs"; they also needed to accommodate that case where we don't have an ID that we demand. This change will also help with bridges, since we want to be able to connect to a bridge without knowing all of its IDs up front. The protocol currently _requires_ the two current ID types in some places. To deal with that, I added a new `MissingId` error. I also removed a couple of unconditional identity accessors for chanmgr; code should use `target().identity(...)` instead. tor-chanmgr ----------- This is an incomplete conversion: it does not at all handle channel targets without Ed25519 identities yet. It still uses those identities to index its internal map from identity to channel; but it gives a new `MissingId` error type if it's given a channel target that doesn't have one. We'll want to revise the map type again down the road when we implement bridges, but I'd rather not step on the channel-padding work in progress right now. tor-guardmgr ------------ This change is mostly a matter of constructing owned identity types more sensibly, rather than unwrapping them directly. There are some places marked with TODOs where we still depend on particular identity types, because of how the directory protocol works. This will need revisiting when we add bridge support here. tor-circmgr ----------- These changes are just relatively simple API changes in the tests.

Introduce a RelayIdSet and use it in place of HashSet.

2022-08-10T14:39:36Z

This makes lookups a little more efficient. I do with that HashSet just supported this use-case, but for now this seems our best option.

Parsing, encoding, and serde for RelayId.

2022-08-10T14:39:36Z

The formats used here are backward-compatible with those used by C tor and those used elsewhere in our code. We need a way to encode _both_ current kinds of identities as a string that tells you what kind of ID they are. Traditionally we have used hexadecimal, sometimes with a $, for RSA ids, and we have used base64 for Ed25519 IDs. We also introduce a new forward-compatible format for new identity keys in the future. (The new format is the key identity type, a colon, and the id encoded as base64.) We will use this new format _only_ when we need to encode identities in a way where it would be otherwise unclear what kind of key we are dealing with.

Add a set of Identity-related types and accessors.

2022-08-10T14:39:36Z

I wonder if these types are correct. I think it makes sense to have a Ref type like this, rather than just using `&RelayId`, but it doesn't seems that I can make `RelayId` and `RelayIdRef` implement Borrow and ToOwned for one another, so maybe I've messed up.

tor-linkspec: Refactor out traits to represent a relay's ID set.

2022-08-02T16:40:23Z

We want the set of identities supported by a relay to be extensible in the future with minimal fuss; we'd also like to make working with these ID sets more convenient. To handle that, this commit adds a new trait for "Something that has the same IDs as a relay" and a new object for "an owned representation of a relay's IDs." This commit introduces a similar trait for "Something with a list of SocketAddr, like a relay has." There's no owned equivelent for that, since Vec is already a thing. Closes #428.

Run maint/add_warning crates/*/src/{lib,main}.rs

2022-06-23T18:15:42Z

Update all lint blocks

lints: Add let_unit_value allow to all crates

2022-05-31T14:23:52Z

From running add_warning, with manual picking of the right hunks/lines.

lints: Add lint block delimiters to every crate

2022-05-31T12:00:31Z

This was the result of: maint/add_warning crates/*/src/{lib,main}.rs and then manually curating the results.

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.