| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Also add some TODO comments in circmgr for future work.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We handle them by reporting them to task that's waiting for the
circuit, then relaying the panic.
Doing so allows the waiting task to distinguish panics
(EK::Internal) from cases where the reactor dropped the task
entirely (EK::ReactorShuttingDown). And doing _that_ removes one
case of EK::Canceled, which helps us on our goals towards #348.
Closes #347.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
We can't use discriminants here now, but maybe we can in the future.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
From its old name, this error had implied that we were giving no
useful information when we were waiting on a pending cirucit request
that failed. In fact, this error would only happen if we dropped the
`mpsc::Sender` for a circuit attempt without reporting success or
failure.
|
| |
|
|
| |
(Instead of reporting the _last_ error, report the _worst_ error.)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These errors should almost never be seen by the user; we should instead
retry the circuit. But they _can_ be seen by the use if selecting a
guard takes too long, or too many attempts. (Therefore, they aren't true
"internal" errors.)
I suspect that we might not want to keep this TransientFailure kind, but
I'm not sure what else to do here for now.
|
| |
|
|
| |
There are a couple of tricky ones I'll do separately.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
(By our convention, these errors should say what we were trying to
spawn when the error occurred.)
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Provide an enum variant to contain the SpawnError and a From impl.
We use `#[from]` here because it doesn't really make sense to attach
any context, as it's not likely to be very relevant.
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Make most arti-client fields reconfigurable.
See merge request tpo/core/arti!181
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
And now the complexity begins: when the user changes the path_rules,
they not only want new circuits to obey those rules: they want
_all new requests_ to be put onto circuits that obey those rules.
That means that when the path rules become more restrictive, we need
to retire all the circuits, and make sure that currently pending
circuits aren't used for any requests.
If it's any comfort, doing this was even more complicated in C tor. ;)
|
| |/ |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
(When we're building a path with a guard, we need to tell the guard
manager whether the path succeeded, and we need to wait to hear
whether the guard is usable.)
|
| | |
|
|
|
This will cause some pain for now, but now is really the best time
to do this kind of thing.
|
