| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| ... | |
| | |/ / / |
|
| |\ \ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
tor-netdoc: blanket impl parse2 traits for Arc
See merge request tpo/core/arti!3381
|
| | |/ / /
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This replaces one ad-hoc impl and will avoid having to have any more.
|
| |\ \ \ \
| |_|/ /
|/| | |
| | | |
| | | | |
proto: Add the initial implementation of the relay reactor(s)
See merge request tpo/core/arti!3369
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
The `RelayReactor` now holds the sending end of the shutdown broadcast
channel, so if `RelayReactor` exits, both the forward and the backward
relay reactor will notice and shut down too.
Similarly, if the forward or backward reactor exits, the `RelayReactor`
will notice (because it select!s between the two), and will shut down
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
I used `futures::join` by mistake: the intention here is to have
`RelayReactor` exit when either one of the fwd/bwd reactors exits.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This also clarifies why we reroute cells to `BackwardReactor`.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Things will get very confusing if every reactor uses different variable
names for this, so I am renaming it back to input.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
The channel provider is used to request outgoing channels from the
`ChanMgr` in response to `EXTEND`/`EXTEND2` cells, so it belongs in the
`ForwardReactor`.
(This was leftover from the old circ reactor architecture)
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This is the first step towards parallelizing stream reads and
writes.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This makes it a bit clearer that `cell_rx` is for moving stream data
between `ForwardReactor` and `BackwardReactor`.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
The forward/backward terminology is clearer.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
BackwardReactor is not meant to be used directly (the channel reactor is
supposed to use the `RelayReactor` wrapper instead).
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
`BackwardReactor` now exists alongside `ForwardReactor`,
to make it clearer that they are siblings.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
We are about to need this, because BackwardReactor will be moved to
another module, and we want to keep its internals private.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This is no longer used, and not having it makes the code less generic
and easier to read, so I'm removing it for now.
If we ever need it again, we can add it back.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This is the first step towards making `ForwardReactor` and
`BackwardReactor` be siblings (rather than being in a
primary-subordinate relationship).
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This sketches out the "dual" relay reactor implementation, which has:
* a `ForwardReactor`, which forwards cells from the client to the exit
* a `BackwardReactor`, which deals with streams, control messages, and
forwarding cells from the exit to the client
The `BackwardReactor` is actually the "primary" reactor. It's the
interface we expose to the channel reactor (via the `RelayReactor`
type-alias), and it is in charge of spawning the "secondary"
`ForwardReactor` task (via its `run()` function).
See the module-level docs from `tor_proto::relay::reactor` for more
details on the inner workings of the two reactors.
This commit also adds the incomplete skeleton of the circuit extension
logic. Once #1599 is implemented, we'll be able to uncomment the
commented code, or replace it, depending on what the corresponding
channel reactor APIs look like.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
We only have one command right now (`Shutdown`), so this is mostly just
boilerplate.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
We will need a handle to the runtime to spawn the "secondary" reactor
from the main one.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
There will soon be multiple systems that need to be notified of reactor
shut down, so it's time to change this to a channel type with a
cloneable receiver.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
These will be shared with the relay code.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
The TODO is silly, because there will be no "outgoing channel map".
There will be at most *one* outgoing channel, and that is represented by
`Option<Outbound>`.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
That way we don't need to make halfstream `pub(crate)` (we only really
use it in streammap, and in the client reactor, because of the
`handle_msg()` kludge).
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|