| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This will allow for testing, as the CircuitBuilder can be replaced with
a mocked version.
This did require moving some of what was in the CircuitBuilder impl into
the AbstractCircuitBuilder type, since Drop implementations can't be
specialized, but that's fine, as we'll probably be doing more of that in
the future anyways.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
AbstractSpec and FakeSpec actually make testing more difficult, since
they prevent using FakeBuilder in code that relies on the concrete
TargetCircUsage and SupportedCircUsage types. Removing them means
FakeBuilder can be used in more places, and also means that the test
code is closer to the real code, since TargetCircUsage and
SupportedCircUsage are now exercised directly in more tests.
This did require making one change to a test, which I think was
previously testing behaviour that was true for FakeSpec but not for the
real code:
The mgr::test::isolated test previously asserted that, in the case where
three circuits were requested, two with isolation and one without, the
non-isolated circuit would be shared with one of the isolated circuits.
This was allowed by the FakeSpec::supports function. However, in the
actual code, the path is as follows:
* AbstractCircMgr::get_or_launch
* AbstractCircMgr::prepare_action
* CircList::find_open
* AbstractSpec::find_supported
* abstract_spec_find_supported
* OpenEntry::supports
* SupportedCircUsage::supports
* StreamIsolation::compatible_same_type
StreamIsolation::compatible_same_type checks owner_type, which is
always zero for non-isolated streams and always non-zero for isolated
streams, meaning that a isolated stream will never be compatible with a
non-isolated stream. The seems like desirable behaviour, so I simply
modified the test to make four connections, two isolated and two not,
and checked that the isolated streams never share any circuits, and that
the two non-isolated streams use the same circuit. As far as I can tell,
this is the intended behaviour in the existing code.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Functions that took `Option<&GuardMgr>` now take only `&GuardMgr`.
Three unit tests were removed that covered behaviour when no guard
manager was set.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This was addressed in !2046, but I forgot to remove the TODO.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Part of #1297
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now ClientCirc is no longer `Clone`, and the things that need it
to be `Clone` instead return and use an Arc<ClientCirc>
We're doing this so that ClientCirc can participate in the RPC
system, and so that its semantics are more obvious.
Closes #846.
Thanks to the type system, this was a much simpler refactoring than
I had feared it would be.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Channel padding depends on what the channel is being used for. We
therefore need to let the channel code know this information.
The implementation of the per-channel padding control logic will be in
the new note_usage function, which for now is simply a stub.
A future commit will introduce a `PaddingControlState` which lives in
the channel frontend; consult the doc comment for that type to see why
the plumbing through the channel manager terminates in the channel
frontend.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Remove all `use` statements for `TryFrom` and `TryInto`. These are
now redundant in Rust 2021.
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
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.
|
