| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Not all of these strictly need to be bumped to 0.2.0; many could go
to 0.1.1 instead. But since everything at the tor-rtcompat and
higher layers has had breaking API changes, it seems not so useful
to distinguish. (It seems unlikely that anybody at this stage is
depending on e.g. tor-protover but not arti-client.)
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We perform this operation in a bunch of places, and most of them
use hex::decode(). That's not great, since hex::decode() has to do
heap allocation. This implementation uses hex::decode_to_slice(),
which should be faster.
(In the future we might choose to use one of the faster hex
implementations, but I'm hoping that this change will be sufficient
to get hex decoding out of our profiles.)
Part of #377.
|
| |
|
|
| |
No functional change.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm going to change the code that does this, so add a test first
to check the output doesn't change.
At some point we should have more RSA tests.
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Disable clippy::clone_on_ref_ptr
See merge request tpo/core/arti!352
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
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<Something> to Something: Clone, or vice
versa.
|
| |/ |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This exception is no longer necessary now that the underlying CI bug
is fixed.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Closes #338.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I found these versions empirically, by using the following process:
First, I used `cargo tree --depth 1 --kind all` to get a list of
every immediate dependency we had.
Then, I used `cargo upgrade --workspace package@version` to change
each dependency to the earliest version with which (in theory) the
current version is semver-compatible. IOW, if the current version
was 3.2.3, I picked "3". If the current version was 0.12.8, I
picked "0.12".
Then, I used `cargo +nightly upgrade -Z minimal-versions` to
downgrade Cargo.lock to the minimal listed version for each
dependency. (I had to override a few packages; see .gitlab-ci.yml
for details).
Finally, I repeatedly increased the version of each of our
dependencies until our code compiled and the tests passed. Here's
what I found that we need:
anyhow >= 1.0.5: Earlier versions break our hyper example.
async-broadcast >= 0.3.2: Earlier versions fail our tests.
async-compression 0.3.5: Earlier versions handled futures and tokio
differently.
async-trait >= 0.1.2: Earlier versions are too buggy to compile our
code.
clap 2.33.0: For Arg::default_value_os().
coarsetime >= 0.1.20: exposed as_ticks() function.
curve25519-dalek >= 3.2: For is_identity().
generic-array 0.14.3: Earlier versions don't implement
From<&[T; 32]>
httparse >= 1.2: Earlier versions didn't implement Error.
itertools at 0.10.1: For at_most_once.
rusqlite >= 0.26.3: for backward compatibility with older rustc.
serde 1.0.103: Older versions break our code.
serde_json >= 1.0.50: Since we need its Value type to implement Eq.
shellexpand >= 2.1: To avoid a broken dirs crate version.
tokio >= 1.4: For Handle::block_on().
tracing >= 0.1.18: Previously, tracing_core and tracing had separate
LevelFilter types.
typenum >= 1.12: Compatibility with rust-crypto crates
x25519-dalek >= 1.2.0: For was_contributory().
Closes #275.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This comment was about an unspecified string; the issue of
specifying the string is now torspec!55.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
We generally try to track the latest rust-crypto traits when we can:
fortunately, this upgrade didn't break much, considering.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We want to only use TODO in the codebase for non-blockers, and open
tickets for anything that is a bigger blocker than a TODO. These
XXXXs seem like definite non-blockers to me.
Part of arti#231.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
For this one I just wrote some "are things completely broken" tests
for the rand_compat wrappers. These won't detect subtle biases in
the RNGs! They'll only let you know if the wrappers have screwed up
in some way that always sets a given bit to 1 or 0.
|
| |\ |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |/ |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Also fix some commonwealth spellings that had slipped in.
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Put most non-universally-needed functionality behind features
Closes #125
See merge request tpo/core/arti!129
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
We don't currently need a couple of the key manipulation features
that we have, since we aren't yet doing relays or onion service
clients.
Part of #125
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
| |
This is a security fix for a panic.
Closes #236
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead of putting a fully qualified name in the text, in most cases
we should just use the short name of the type or function we're
referring to.
In other words, instead of saying [`crate::module::Foo`], we should
typically say [`Foo`](crate::module::Foo).
|
| |
|
|
| |
We need this now that we check for contributory behavior.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I tried using -Z minimal-versions to downgrade all first-level
dependencies to their oldest permitted versions, and found that we
were apparently depending on newer features of all three crates.
I'm kind of surprised there were only three.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
By default rand does not build for WASM browser targets.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
|
This will cause some pain for now, but now is really the best time
to do this kind of thing.
|
