[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #25306 [Core Tor/Tor]: tor_assertion_failed_(): Bug: ../src/or/hs_service.c:1985: rotate_all_descriptors: Assertion service->desc_current failed; aborting.
#25306: tor_assertion_failed_(): Bug: ../src/or/hs_service.c:1985:
rotate_all_descriptors: Assertion service->desc_current failed; aborting.
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Reporter: cypherpunks | Owner: dgoulet
Type: defect | Status:
| merge_ready
Priority: Medium | Milestone: Tor:
| 0.3.3.x-final
Component: Core Tor/Tor | Version: Tor:
| 0.3.3.2-alpha
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: tor-hs, crash, 033-must, | Actual Points:
032-backport, review-group-34, |
033-triage-20180320, 033-included-20180320 |
Parent ID: | Points:
Reviewer: asn | Sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Comment (by asn):
Replying to [comment:21 dgoulet]:
> I kind of think we need to nest the check unfortunately in order to
catch the bug. There is really only one way this can happen and it is if
our `valid_after` time is bigger than the service rotation time.
>
> If we were to not nest the checks, we would have something like this:
>
> {{{
> if (ns->valid_after >= service->state.next_rotation_time ||
> BUG(service->desc_current == NULL || service->desc_next == NULL))
{
> goto no_rotation;
> }
> if (ns->valid_after >= service->state.next_rotation_time) {
> goto rotation;
> }
> }}}
>
> I'm not super convinced it makes the code simpler? or more trivial?
Agreed. We can proceed as is.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/25306#comment:24>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs