| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| ... | |
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Also add a comment about a possible problem behavior in read-only
estimators.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously it was either all-locked or all-not-locked. Now you can
simulate having the same shared storage opened by multiple managers,
only one of which has the lock.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
@nickm pointed out that refactoring tor_proto::channel's Reactor to do
sending as well meant that it could only send or receive, but not both,
simultaneously, which was bad!
To fix this, rewrite Reactor::run_once to use a handcrafted future (with
futures::future::poll_fn) that can handle the logic required to push
items onto the sink asynchronously (i.e. checking that it can be written
to before trying to do that, and then flushing it).
This also means we don't use select_biased! any more, and just handroll
that logic ourselves; as a small bonus, we can now process all 3 kinds
of message in one run_once() call, instead of having to do only one of
them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead of awkwardly sharing the internals of a `tor-proto` `Channel`
between the reactor task and any other tasks, move most of the internals
into the reactor and have other tasks communicate with the reactor via
message-passing to allocate circuits and send cells.
This makes a lot of things simple, and has convenient properties like
not needing to wrap the `Channel` in an `Arc` (though some places in the
code still do this for now).
A lot of test code required tweaking in order to deal with the refactor;
in fact, fixing the tests probably took longer than writing the mainline
code (!). Importantly, we now use `tokio`'s `tokio::test` annotation
instead of `async_test`, so that we can run things in the background
(which is required to have reactors running for the circuit tests).
This is an instance of #205, and also kind of #217.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This check relies on families being enforced correctly, which is not
the case when specifying a fixed exit and using guards. (See #183)
|
| | |
|
| |\ |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This is based on @eta's patches for !118 and !119: Since we already
have an unbounded channel, we don't need to use an elaborate mess of
one-shot senders. We can just use the unbounded_send() method,
which also lets us enqueue a message without having to await.
Closes #219.
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
This doesn't add much to coverage, but it's important.
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
We define "coming back online" as happening when a guard attempt
succeeds, if that attempt that was launched when we seemed to be
offline.
We define "seeming to be offline" as having all of our primary
guards marked unreachable, and having received no incoming network
traffic in a while.
Closes #216.
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
We need this for the circuit timeout estimator (#57). It needs to
know "how recently have we got some incoming traffic", so that it
can tell whether a circuit has truly timed out, or whether the
entire network is down.
I'm implementing this with coarsetime, since we need to update these
in response to every single incoming cell, and we need the timestamp
operation to be _fast_.
(This reinstates an earlier commit, f30b2280, which I reverted
because we didn't need it at the time.)
Closes #179.
|
| |\ \ \
| |_|/
|/| | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Basically the same thing as 371437d3384ed73520e7141e66874be3d85f1df0
("Refactor tor_proto::channel::Reactor to use an UnboundedSender"), but
for tor_proto::circuit's Reactor instead.
(part of arti#217)
|
| |/ / |
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | |/
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
There wasn't any good reason for tor-proto's channel reactor to use a
shedload of oneshot channels instead of just an mpsc UnboundedSender,
and the whole `CtrlResult` thing made even less sense.
Straighten this code out by replacing all of that machinery with a
simple UnboundedSender, instead.
(part of arti#218)
|
| | | |
|
| |/ |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |\ |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Most of the structs in `arti-client` have example code now, to give a
clearer idea of how they're used.
Annoyingly, a lot of the types exposed in `arti-client` are actually
re-exports, which makes documentation a bit harder: example code that
references other parts of `arti-client` can't actually be run as a
doctest, since the crate it's in is a dependency of `arti-client`.
We might be able to fix this in future by doing the documentation in
`arti-client` itself, but rustdoc seems to have some weird behaviours
there that need to be investigated first (for example, it seems to merge
the re-export and original documentation, and also put the re-export
documentation on the `impl` block for some reason).
For now, though, this commit just writes the docs from the point of view
of an `arti-client` consumer, removing notes specific to the crate in
which they're defined. It's not ideal, but at least the end user
experience is decent.
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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).
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I'm not 100% sure this is better, but it might help the user
understand how Arti works a bit better.
|
| | |
|
| |\ |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This overhauls the top-level `arti-client` documentation significantly:
- the "Using arti-client" section walks the user through all of the
necessary steps to initiate a Torified TCP connection, and then
provides a code example
- this example is also available as `examples/readme.rs`; it's not run
as a doctest, since it involves connecting to Tor
- a "More advanced usage" subheading provides information about stream
isolation (and can potentially be used for other interesting
features once we get them).
- a new "Multiple runtime support" section was added to explain the
purpose and usage of the `tor-rtcompat` crate
- the section on design and privacy considerations was removed; this is
probably okay to keep in a README, but users of the crate aren't going
to be interested in this (at least I don't think)
(also, the doc comment for `arti_client::Error` was fixed to make actual
sense)
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This test uses a consensus that I've copied from
tor-netdoc/testdata. I would include it directly, but I think that
will cause trouble when it comes time to run "cargo package".
|
| | |/
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This will let us test the state processing code without having to
give it up-to-date directory objects.
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | |/
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
The previous version of this test used the old, racy version of
wait_for (see #149). The new version is refactored so that
simulated time is only allowed to advance after each step is done,
so that we can actually be sure that each step in the process will
happen as it should.
In order to get the time-advances to proceed properly, and avoid
polluting state between tests, I've had to introduce some machinery
to encode the proper amount for time to advance. It isn't something
I'd want to use for a whole bunch of tests, but for just one set,
it's fine.
These tests now pass reliably for me.
I wonder if a discrete-event-simulation approach (hello, Shadow)
would let us write tests like these to our hearts' content?
|
