I followed the following procedure to make these changes:
* I used maint/changed_crates to find out which crates had changed
since 0.3.0.
* I used grep and maint/list_crates to sort those crates in
topological (dependency) order.
* I looked through semver_status to find which crates were listed as
having semver-relevant changes (new APIs and breaking changes).
* I scanned through the git logs of the crates with no
semver-relevant changes listed to confirm that, indeed, they had
no changes. For those crates, I incremented their patch-level
version _without_ changing the version that other crates depend on.
* I scanned through the git logs of the crates with no
semver-relevant changes listed to confirm that, indeed, they had
no obvious breaking changes.
* I treated all crates that depend on `arti` and/or `arti-client` as
having breaking changes.
* I identified crates that depend on crates that have changed, even
if they have not changed themselves, and identified them as having
a non-breaking change.
* For all of the crates, I used `cargo set-version -p $CRATE --bump
$STATUS` (where `STATUS` is `patch` or `minor`) to update the
versions, and the depended-upon versions.
This is an automated change made with a perl one-liner and verified
with grep -L and grep -l.
Some warnings are introduced with this change; they will be removed
in subsequent commits.
See arti#208 for older discussion on this issue.
If duration addition overflows, then continue with Never.
Caching the AbsRetryTime constructed with duration from supplied
function also reduces the overhead of earliest_absolute.
For each case, describe its semantics (in addition to when you would
create it).
Explain the relationship between After and At.
Stop saying "Strategy": we renamed this type to "RetryTime".
Not all of these strictly need to be bumped to 0.2.0; many could go
to 0.1.1 instead. But since everything at the tor-rtcompat and
higher layers has had breaking API changes, it seems not so useful
to distinguish. (It seems unlikely that anybody at this stage is
depending on e.g. tor-protover but not arti-client.)
We now check the handshake certificates unconditionally, and only
report them as _expired_ as a last resort.
(Rationale: if somebody is presenting the wrong identity from a year
ago, it is more interesting that they are presenting the wrong ID
than it is that they are doing so with an expired cert.
We also now report a different error if the certificate is expired,
but its expiration is within the range of reported clock skew.
(Rationale: it's helpful to distinguish this case, so that we can
blame the failure on possible clock skew rather than definitely
attributing it to a misbehaving relay.)
Part of #405.
arti-hyper wants to be able to have a kind for TLS failure.
Given that arti-hyper is above arti-client, this shows that callers
above arti-client might need to invent kinds for their own errors.
Possibly this means we need other Other errors for other locations.
If we have pluggable components we might even want OtherTorError.
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.
To implement this, we had to refactor the tor_circmgr api for
flushing state changes to disk, so that it checks if it has the lock,
and only then tries to store.
There was only one use of this, and it was in as-yet-unused relay-only
code.
Removing this type required refactoring the relay onion handshake code
to use its own error type, which is probably clever anyway.
Ian Jackson
trinity-1686a
Nick Mathewson
eta
Ian Jackson
Samanta Navarro