| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Don't use SystemTime::now()
Closes #306
See merge request tpo/core/arti!365
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Code motion and the minimal mechanical changes.
As per
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/merge_requests/375#note_2783078
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I wanted this while debugging something.
The ad-hoc impl Debug with f.debug_struct is getting repetitive
and I've already perpetrated one copy-paste mistake.
We should consider using something like the `educe` crate's Clone.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
See the new commentary text on `ClientCirc` for the rationale.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <[email protected]>
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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. ;)
|
| |\ |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Instead of racily advancing time forward, this commit attempts to rework
how WaitFor works, such that it makes advances when all sleeper futures
that have been created have been polled (by handing the MockSleepRuntime
a Waker with which to wake up the WaitFor).
The above described mechanics work well enough for the double timeout
test, but fail in the presence of code that spawns asynchronous /
background tasks that must make progress before time is advanced for the
test to work properly. In order to deal with these cases, a set of APIs
are introduced in order to block time from being advanced until some
code has run, and a carveout added in order to permit small advances in
time where required.
(In some cases, code needed to be hacked up a bit in order to be made
properly testable using these APIs; the `MockablePlan` trait included in
here is somewhat unfortunate.)
This should fix arti#149.
|
| |/ |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The previous code would report all failures to build a circuit as
failures of the guard. But of course that's not right: If we
fail to extend to the second or third hop, that might or might not
be the guard's fault.
Now we use the "pending status" feature of the GuardMonitor type so
that an early failure is attributed to the guard, but a later
failure is attributed as "Indeterminate". Only a complete circuit
is called a success. We use a new "GuardStatusHandle" type here so
that we can report the status early if there is a timeout.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
(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.
|
