| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The Futureproof<T> type lets you serialize and deserialize types whose
representations might change (most useful for enums that might grow
additional variants). It uses #[serde(untagged)] to accomplish this.
This gets used in order to make the `disabled` field of `Guard` more
robust against future guard disablement reasons being added.
A test was also added to verify correct behaviour of the new type.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As per arti#175, we'd like to be able to handle newer Arti versions
storing additional state in the persisted state files, without dropping
this data on the floor when we write out changes to these files.
Use the #[serde(flatten)] mechanism to achieve this, by adding catch-all
HashMap<String, JsonValue> fields to all structs that are at risk of
this happening to them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We now track, for every guard: the total number of successful
circuits we've built through it, along with the total number of
"indeterminate" circuits.
Recall that a circuit's status is "indeterminate" if it has failed
for a reason that _might_ be the guard's fault, or might not be the
guard's fault. For example, if extending to the second hop of the
circuit fails, we have no way to know whether the guard deliberately
refused to connect there, or whether the second hop is just offline.
But we don't want to forgive all indeterminate circuit failures: if
we did, then a malicious guard could simply reject any second hops
that it didn't like, thereby filtering the client into a chosen
set of circuits.
As a stopgap solution, this patch now makes guards become
permanently disabled if the fraction of their circuit failures
becomes too high.
See also general-purpose path bias selection (arti#65), and Mike's
idea for changing the guard reachability definition (torspec#67).
This patch doesn't do either of those.
Closes #185.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Closes #202.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The `get_relay` function was confusing, since it would return None if
the relay was present, but wasn't actually a guard. We only used it
in one place, and in that one place we used it wrong, leading to a
panic bug.
Fixes #193.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
By the time I merge this, most of the comments should have tickets
to go with them.
|
| | |
|
|
|
There are some missing parts here (like persistence and tests)
and some incorrect parts (I am 90% sure that the "exploratory
circuit" flag is bogus). Also it is not integrated with the circuit
manager code.
|