| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
CGO will need this argument so that it can authenticate
the command as part of its crypto operations.
(Trying to meddle with RELAY vs RELAY_EARLY will no longer work!)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
It seems very likely that, as with client crypto,
we'll want relay crypto to separable into "forward" and "reverse"
objects, so that the two can be used more or less independently.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This was missed in commits ccb65961 and eeda643f. While
`params.ccontrol.is_enabled()` should always be false because of those
earlier commits which ensure we don't enable congestion control, we were
missing the defense-in-depth conditions here that would alert us if we
accidentally did enable congestion control.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This means that even with the "flowctl-cc" feature enabled, we shouldn't
try to negotiate congestion control.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Congestion control is not completely working correctly, and is not fully
implemented (XON/XOFF). This commit adds a new experimental "flowctl-cc"
feature to enable the congestion control extension during the ntor-v3
handshake.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
We use this method to decide whether to allow receiving stream SENDMEs,
and also whether we should send stream SENDMEs.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
`OpenStreamEnt::put_for_incoming_sendme()` calls
`StreamSendFlowControl::put_for_incoming_sendme()`, which returns an
error if the `StreamSendFlowControl` is in XON/XOFF mode. So we don't
need this extra check.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Congestion control tells us whether we should use stream or XON/XOFF
flow control.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously new stream entries required a `StreamSendWindow`, but to
support other flow control algorithms, we want new stream entries to
take a `StreamSendFlowControl` instead.
This also deduplicates the `StreamSendWindow` creation code.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Also add one for the sendme_inc validity function.
Part of #1817
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If we ever receive a stream-level SENDME from the Exit while the circuit
is under congestion control (Vegas), it is a protocol violation so close
the circuit.
This is important in order to avoid yet another side channel with cells
that would be essentially ignored silently.
Part of #1817
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This adds a new function to the CongestionControl object that returns
true or false on if stream level SENDMEs are allowed by the underlying
algorithm.
Congestion control Vegas doesn't allow them as in it retires them and so
we avoid sending them for that algorithm.
Part of #1817
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
These pass through congestion control state to the reactor, and aren't
actually hooked up to the congestion control code yet.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This puts in, based on the circuit parameters, the CC extension request
in the CREATE and EXTEND requests.
Part of #1817
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This avoids cloning the object and instead allows us to have a
CircParameters per hop on the circuit path. This will come handy with
congestion control where each hop might have different congestion
control parameters.
Part of #1817
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When receiving the congestion control response extension, evaluate our
state and set the sendme_inc if valid in our circuit parameters.
For this, a series of helper functions is needed.
Part of #1817
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is required because circuit ntor v3 handshake can negotiate circuit
level parameters and thus able to change any values.
Needed for congestion control ntorv3 handshake extension for which the
sendme increment is negotiated.
Part of #1817
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <[email protected]>
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Since v1 cells have a longer tag, they can fit less data into a
single cell. Ah well, that's the cost of improved security.
The code in data.rs is a little wonky, in that it currently requires
its buffer to be exactly the maximum size for a data cell. We have
a TODO about fixing that in the future, but for now I've moved it to
use a boxed slice rather than a boxed array.
Part of #1944.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This will let us actually _send_ messages in the right format.
This approach is not ideal for packed/fragmented messages;
they will need a separate RelayCellEncoder.
part of #1944.
|
| |
|
|
| |
(Also note a couple of other CGO-related issues)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In `send_relay_cell()` in `tunnel/reactor/circuit.rs`,
replace an unconditional array access (which would cause a panic if
`hop_num` were out-of-range) with a checked `get_mut()` call.
It's not totally clear whether this can happen in practice,
but in either case, an error is probably better than a panic.
All of our other lookups in this vector are either checked,
or more obviously infallible.
Closes #1950.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This won't involve an extra dep, because we already use `itertools`
throughout the codebase.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
For service introduction circuits, we have `IptMsgHandler`, so we've
already worked something out :)
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
ntor v3 is now always enabled.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| | |
tor-proto: simplify `ConfluxSet::circuit_action`
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2884
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
I also added an additional non-doc TODO comment.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
As far as I can tell, the extra drop handling code isn't needed anymore.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
I think the return type is simplified enough now that we don't need
this.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Now returns only the first item of the stream rather than the stream
itself. We use this in `Reactor::run_once`, which means we only ever use
the first item anyways.
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \
| |/
|/|
| |
| | |
tor-proto: Replace RunOnceCmdInner with CircuitCmd in Circuit impl
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2881
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Prompted by https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/merge_requests/2881#note_3178624
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
There is no `Multiple` counterpart in `CircuitAction`, so the `Single`
variant name doesn't make much sense.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
The `LegId` is now added by the caller, when converting the resulting
`CircuitCmd`s to `RunOnceCmdInner`.
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
`CircuitCmd`s are a subset of `RunOnceCmdInner`, and don't have a
`LegId`.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
A `CircuitCmd`, unlike `RunOnceCmdInner`, doesn't know anything about
`LegId`s. The user of the `CircuitCmd`s is supposed to know the `LegId`
of the circuit the `CircuitCmd` came from. This is necessary because
circuits don't know (and can't know) their own `LegId`.
The various `Circuit` operations (e.g. `handle_cell`) will soon be
updated to return `CircuitCmd` instead of `RunOnceCmdInner` (because the
`RunOnceCmdInner` variants will soon be updated to also have an
associated `LegId`, and `Circuit`s don't have access to their `LegId`s).
The calling code, which *does* know the `LegId`, will then map
`CircuitCmd`s to `RunOnceCmdInner`.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This tells the reactor which circuit leg the input message originated
from.
Addresses a TODO.
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|