| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Closes #338.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This is still not as soon as I'd like: a real change here will require
refactoring DirMgr::notify().
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Just as `in_same_family` is a member of Relay, so the function for
getting all the real family members of a relay should belong in the
same crate.
This change also removes the `family()` accessor: it gives the _claimed_ family rather
than the _acknlowedged_ family, and is therefore a bit dangerous.
There's still a hole in this logic; I've noted it in the Limitations
section. If we get a microdescriptor for a relay in between creating
and using the guard restriction, it might be omitted from the family
list.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Also fix some commonwealth spellings that had slipped in.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Chutney needs this, to avoid putting every relay in the same family.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Also use the path_rules name consistently throughout the code.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This will let us provide a couple of better APIs for use in tor-guardmgr
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
(Also, fix a test)
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I'm not thrilled with this code, but I think it's needed to
implement guards correctly.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We'll need `id_pair_is_listed()` to track whether a sampled guard is
(or is not) listed in the consensus.
We'll need `missing_descriptor_for` to see whether we've downloaded
enough microdescs to use a consensus.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
(Thank goodness for rust; we messed up the coherency in C here so
many times, but I'm pretty sure that this time around we can't have
gotten it wrong.)
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I'm alright with allowing cognitive-complexity violations in the
tests.
|
| |\ |
|
| | | |
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Doing this makes the code faster, lets us throw away some code, and
makes it easier to add a "choose-N-disjoint relays" implementation.
See large comment about plusses and minuses of new code. (Note that
the old implementation wasn't constant-time either.)
|
|
|
This will cause some pain for now, but now is really the best time
to do this kind of thing.
|
