| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
With this patch, it holds only a reference to `&reactor.hops`,
which greatly simplifies the reactor code's fight with the
borrow checker.
I've left some TODO comments about future directions here.
|
| |
|
|
| |
(Doing this to prevent us having two structs with the same name.)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Based on designs in #1124.
Note that there is a TODO here about a hack I had to do to appease
the borrow checker.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
We'll use this as an argument for the callback that checks stream
requests to make sure they're permitted.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
We want to keep an accurate count of the number of open streams, so
we have to stop exposing `&mut StreamEnt` outside of the streammap
module.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the first part of a refactoring that will let us keep code
from the outside of `streammap` from changing a stream from one
state to another. And we need to do _that_ so that StreamMap can
count how many open streams it has.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The key insights here are:
- That relay cell format and crypto protocols aren't orthogonal:
Once we have GCO, it will require V1.
- That we only need the actual functions for layer construction to
be generic; we don't need to proliferate generic parameters
everywhere.
- That the circuit::handshake module already does most of what we
want.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This lets us paramaterize types and functions by a particular relay cell
format. We use this e.g. to statically parameterize the cell crypto
functions, thereby removing some run-time branching in the hot path.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Different formats will use different ranges for the `recognized` and
`digest` fields.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Prop 340:
https://spec.torproject.org/proposals/340-packed-and-fragmented.html
This updates the decoding API to support multiple versions of the relay
cell encoding, including the new encoding proposed in prop340 that
supports relay message packing and fragmentation.
This commit doesn't actually add support for that new encoding yet.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
For consistency with the terminology proposed in
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/torspec/-/issues/253
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
`tor_circmgr::Error::Protocol` will soon include an optional `UniqId`.
Since `Protocol` errors can be caused by pending circuits, we need to be
able to peek at their `UniqId`.
Part of #1297
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Some of the `tor_circmgr::Error` variants will include the `UniqId` of the
corresponding circuit, so we'll need to be able to display it without the
`Circ ` prefix.
Part of #1297
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We never actually constructed these before, but now we enforce it at
the API level.
Part of #1269.
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Several clean-ups around failures in incoming stream request handlers.
Closes #1190, #1189, and #1188
See merge request tpo/core/arti!1892
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Closes #1190
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
In theory, it might be better to just un-register the
IncomingStreamRequestHandler when the Receiver for the stream
requests is dropped. However, there are two reasons not to do so:
1. It's tricky. We never actually poll on the corresponding Sink,
so there isn't a place where the Reactor would expect to get a
prompt notification of closure. We only find out that the
Receiver has been dropped when an attempt to send on the Sink
returns an `is_disconnected` error.
2. It's unnecessary. In the Tor protocols, once we have decided to
accept incoming stream requests on a circuit, we want to continue
to do so until one of the parties closes the circuit.
I've documented this in several comments, in case whe want to get
fancier in the future.
Closes #1188.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Closes #1189.
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
| |
The bug described here was already fixed as #1065 via !1681.
Closes #1191.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These are about making allow_incoming_streams give an error if a
handler is already installed.
I'm calling these non-MUST, since they don't affect the actual API
here, and we already have comments telling you not to do that. We
can add them later.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These comments are about internal representations and future extensions.
Also, add a fail-safe check to make sure that hop_num consistency is
enforced.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Filed
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/issues/1176
proposing a final fix.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Resolves clippy complaints about needless fallible conversions.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
FTR I don't think agree with clippy on this question, but then I often
don't.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This commit is pure renaming, done automatically with rust-analyzer.
Comment fixes and other cleanups will be in the subsequent commits.
We're doing this renaming because we need a name for
the combination of a `RelayMsg` and an `Option<StreamId>`
that we use when we have a `RelayMsg`
we intend to route to a given stream or circuit internally.
Previously we called this a `RelayCell`,
but that name was already somewhat inaccurate,
and will become _very_ inaccurate with the arrival of prop340,
which breaksthe 1:1 relationship between relay cells
and relay messages.
(If we didn't do this renaming now, we'd soon be making
the relationship between `UnparsedRelayCell`and `RelayCell`
many-to-many, which would be ridiculous and confusing.)
The `RelayMsgOuter` name is a placeholder:
We expect that we'll want to rename this type,
and may also want to rename `RelayMsg`,
and unify our vocabulary in other areas too.
But such a renaming will have to wait
for a larger discussion affecting the specifications,
so that we can use the same vocabulary everywhere.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
An encoded set of extensions in the ntorv3 handshake includes a header
with the number of extensions. This change adds that header.
It also changes `write_many_onto` to take a slice instead of an
iterator, since we need to know the number of extensions up-front. In
principle we could take a clonable iterator instead and use
Iterator::count, but it's probably not worth the extra complexity.
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Convert to the latest versions of dalek-cryptography
Closes #808
See merge request tpo/core/arti!1767
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This code was needed with the old version of dalek-cryptography,
which wasn't compatible with up-to-date versions of the `rand`
crate(s). But now that we've upgraded, we can drop this.
(We could have left it around and deprecated it, but we are already
making a breaking change to tor-llcrypto by upgrading
dalek-cryptography.)
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
The main changes that we have to adjust for are as follows:
* In x25519-dalek:
* `StaticSecret` is now behind a feature.
* `StaticSecret::new` is deprecated in favor of
`StaticSecret::random_from_rng`.
* StaticSecret no longer does its own clamping.
* In ed25519-dalek:
* `SecretKey` has (in effect) been renamed to `SigningKey`. The name
`SecretKey` is now an alias for `[u8; 32]`.
* `SigningKey` is effectively a keypair, since it contains a
public key as well.
* `PublicKey` has been renamed to `VerifyingKey`.
* The functions to extract a signing key and verifying key have
been renamed as you might expect.
* `ExpandedSecretKey` has been moved to `hasmat` and no longer
implements `sign`.
* `ExpanededSecretKey` now has as its elements a scalar and a hash
prefix.
* Various functions that took `&[u8]` now take `&[u8; N]`.
* We no longer need a wrapper for older versions of rand.
There is a single test in tor-keymgr that does not pass. I've
marked it as ignore for now, in hopes that @gabi-250 can help me
figure it out.
This closes #808. There are several changes I want to make before
we merge, however. They are marked with TODO DALEK.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This makes it possible to see the wood for the trees.
This may be controversial, but I think it's an improvement.
|