The "full" feature is a catch-all for all features, _except_:
* Those that select a particular implementation (like
tor-llcrypto/with-openssl) or build flag (like "static")
* Those that are experimental or unstable (like "experimental-api")
* Those that are testing-only.
After changes to the prop339, the domain name in an Address can only be
255 bytes max and can NOT contain nul byte(s).
Unit tests had to be modified to accept this change:
- Centralise msg_ip_address
- Add currently-passing tests for address length
- Test counted address length longer than type wants
Related to #463
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
This only affects uses of thread_rng(), and affects them all more or
less indiscriminately. One test does not work with
ARTI_TEST_PRNG=deterministic; the next commit will fix it.
This commit was made by reverting the previous commit, then
re-running the script I used to generate it. In theory there should
be no semantic changes: only changes due to improved formatting from
cargo edit.
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.
These crates had only clippy fixes that do not affect their
behavior:
tor-bytes
tor-cell
tor-events
tor-linkspec
tor-netdir
tor-socksproto
This crate only had the cargo-husky dependency removed, which
does not affect compatibility:
tor-llcrypto
Since these changes have no compatibility effects, it is not
necessary to bump the versions of these crates which other crates
depend on.
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.
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.)
NETINFO cells, which are sent in every handshake, may contain
timestamps. This patch adds an accessor for the timestamp in the
Netinfo messages, and teaches the tor-proto code how to compute the
minimum clock skew in the code.
The computation isn't terribly precise, but it doesn't need to be:
Tor should work fine if your clock is accurate to within a few
hours.
This patch also notes a Y2038 problem in the protocol: see
torspec#80.
Part of #405.
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.
In one of the two places, nightly no longer warns. In the other
place, it's fine for nightly to warn: I just fixed the code to take
a slice instead.
Partial revert of 856aca8791.
Resolves part of #310.
Additionally, refactor the IoError out of tor_cell::Error:
nothing in TorCell created this; it was only used by tor_proto.
This required refactoring in tor_proto to use a new error type. Here I
decided to use a new CodecError for now, though we may refactor that
away soon too.
Nick Mathewson
Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson
trinity-1686a
David Goulet
Orhun Parmaksız