Commit 418c2e1b authored by Nick Mathewson's avatar Nick Mathewson 🌉
Browse files

r14181@tombo: nickm | 2008-02-15 16:48:17 -0500

 Fix all but 2 DOCDOC items; defer many XXX020s (particularly those where fixing them would fix no bugs at the risk of introducing some bugs).


svn:r13529
parent 861c79dc
......@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ typedef struct tor_addr_t
} addr;
} tor_addr_t;
/* XXXX020 rename these. */
/* XXXX021 rename these. */
static INLINE uint32_t IPV4IP(const tor_addr_t *a);
static INLINE uint32_t IPV4IPh(const tor_addr_t *a);
static INLINE uint32_t IPV4MAPh(const tor_addr_t *a);
......
......@@ -119,10 +119,8 @@ typedef struct chunk_freelist_t {
/** Static array of freelists, sorted by alloc_len, terminated by an entry
* with alloc_size of 0. */
/**XXXX020 tune these values. And all allocation sizes, really. */
static chunk_freelist_t freelists[] = {
FL(256, 1024, 16), FL(512, 1024, 16), FL(1024, 512, 8), FL(4096, 256, 8),
FL(8192, 128, 4), FL(16384, 64, 4), FL(32768, 32, 2), FL(65536, 16, 2),
FL(4096, 256, 8), FL(8192, 128, 4), FL(16384, 64, 4), FL(32768, 32, 2),
FL(0, 0, 0)
};
#undef FL
......@@ -180,7 +178,7 @@ chunk_new_with_alloc_size(size_t alloc)
freelist->lowest_length = freelist->cur_length;
++freelist->n_hit;
} else {
/* XXXX020 take advantage of tor_malloc_roundup, once we know how that
/* XXXX021 take advantage of tor_malloc_roundup, once we know how that
* affects freelists. */
if (freelist)
++freelist->n_alloc;
......@@ -244,8 +242,6 @@ chunk_grow(chunk_t *chunk, size_t sz)
static INLINE size_t
preferred_chunk_size(size_t target)
{
/* XXXX020 use log2 code, maybe. */
/* XXXX020 or make sizing code more fine-grained! */
size_t sz = MIN_CHUNK_ALLOC;
while (CHUNK_SIZE_WITH_ALLOC(sz) < target) {
sz <<= 1;
......@@ -418,10 +414,7 @@ buf_pullup(buf_t *buf, size_t bytes, int nulterminate)
}
/** Resize buf so it won't hold extra memory that we haven't been
* using lately (that is, since the last time we called buf_shrink).
* Try to shrink the buf until it is the largest factor of two that
* can contain <b>buf</b>-&gt;highwater, but never smaller than
* MIN_LAZY_SHRINK_SIZE.
* using lately.
*/
void
buf_shrink(buf_t *buf)
......@@ -454,8 +447,8 @@ buf_remove_from_front(buf_t *buf, size_t n)
check();
}
/** Create and return a new buf with capacity <b>size</b>.
* (Used for testing). */
/** Create and return a new buf with default chunk capacity <b>size</b>.
*/
buf_t *
buf_new_with_capacity(size_t size)
{
......@@ -609,11 +602,11 @@ read_to_chunk_tls(buf_t *buf, chunk_t *chunk, tor_tls_t *tls,
* (because of EOF), set *<b>reached_eof</b> to 1 and return 0. Return -1 on
* error; else return the number of bytes read.
*/
/* XXXX020 indicate "read blocked" somehow? */
/* XXXX021 indicate "read blocked" somehow? */
int
read_to_buf(int s, size_t at_most, buf_t *buf, int *reached_eof)
{
/* XXXX020 It's stupid to overload the return values for these functions:
/* XXXX021 It's stupid to overload the return values for these functions:
* "error status" and "number of bytes read" are not mutually exclusive.
*/
int r = 0;
......@@ -777,7 +770,7 @@ flush_chunk_tls(tor_tls_t *tls, buf_t *buf, chunk_t *chunk,
int
flush_buf(int s, buf_t *buf, size_t sz, size_t *buf_flushlen)
{
/* XXXX020 It's stupid to overload the return values for these functions:
/* XXXX021 It's stupid to overload the return values for these functions:
* "error status" and "number of bytes flushed" are not mutually exclusive.
*/
int r;
......
......@@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ origin_circuit_t *
circuit_find_to_cannibalize(uint8_t purpose, extend_info_t *info,
int flags)
{
/*XXXX020 arma: The purpose argument is ignored. Can that possibly be
/*XXXX021 arma: The purpose argument is ignored. Can that possibly be
* right? */
/* XXXX <arma> i don't know of any actual bugs that this causes. since i
* think we only call the function for purposes where we want it to do what
......
......@@ -925,9 +925,12 @@ client_dns_set_reverse_addressmap(const char *address, const char *v,
*
* These options are configured by parse_virtual_addr_network().
*/
/*DOCDOC options */
/** Which network should we use for virtual IPv4 addresses? Only the first
* bits of this value are fixed. */
static uint32_t virtual_addr_network = 0x7fc00000u;
/** How many bits of <b>virtual_addr_network</b> are fixed? */
static maskbits_t virtual_addr_netmask_bits = 10;
/** What's the next virtual address we will hand out? */
static uint32_t next_virtual_addr = 0x7fc00000u;
/** Read a netmask of the form 127.192.0.0/10 from "val", and check whether
......@@ -1944,7 +1947,7 @@ connection_ap_handshake_send_resolve(edge_connection_t *ap_conn)
uint32_t a;
size_t len = strlen(ap_conn->socks_request->address);
char c = 0;
/* XXXX020 This logic is a little ugly: we check for an in-addr.arpa ending
/* XXXX021 This logic is a little ugly: we check for an in-addr.arpa ending
* on the address. If we have one, the address is already in the right
* order, so we'll leave it alone later. Otherwise, we reverse it and
* turn it into an in-addr.arpa address. */
......@@ -1958,11 +1961,11 @@ connection_ap_handshake_send_resolve(edge_connection_t *ap_conn)
return -1;
}
if (c) {
/* this path happens on DNS. Can we unify? XXXX020 */
/* this path happens on DNS. Can we unify? XXXX021 */
ap_conn->socks_request->address[len-13] = c;
strlcpy(inaddr_buf, ap_conn->socks_request->address, sizeof(inaddr_buf));
} else {
/* this path happens on tor-resolve. Can we unify? XXXX020 */
/* this path happens on tor-resolve. Can we unify? XXXX021 */
a = ntohl(in.s_addr);
tor_snprintf(inaddr_buf, sizeof(inaddr_buf), "%d.%d.%d.%d.in-addr.arpa",
(int)(uint8_t)((a )&0xff),
......@@ -2085,12 +2088,15 @@ tell_controller_about_resolved_result(edge_connection_t *conn,
}
}
/** Send an answer to an AP connection that has requested a DNS lookup
* via SOCKS. The type should be one of RESOLVED_TYPE_(IPV4|IPV6|HOSTNAME) or
* -1 for unreachable; the answer should be in the format specified
* in the socks extensions document.
* DOCDOC ttl expires
/** Send an answer to an AP connection that has requested a DNS lookup via
* SOCKS. The type should be one of RESOLVED_TYPE_(IPV4|IPV6|HOSTNAME) or -1
* for unreachable; the answer should be in the format specified in the socks
* extensions document. <b>ttl</b> is the ttl for the answer, or -1 on
* certain errors or for values that didn't come via DNS. <b>expires</b> is
* a time when the answer expires, or -1 or TIME_MAX if there's a good TTL.
**/
/* XXXX021 the use of the ttl and expires fields is nutty. Let's make this
* interface and those that use it less ugly. */
void
connection_ap_handshake_socks_resolved(edge_connection_t *conn,
int answer_type,
......@@ -2341,7 +2347,9 @@ connection_exit_begin_conn(cell_t *cell, circuit_t *circ)
address = tor_strdup(or_circ->p_conn->_base.address);
else
address = tor_strdup("127.0.0.1");
port = 1; /*XXXX020 set this to something sensible? - NM*/
port = 1; /* XXXX This value is never actually used anywhere, and there
* isn't "really" a connection here. But we
* need to set it to something nonzero. */
} else {
log_warn(LD_BUG, "Got an unexpected command %d", (int)rh.command);
end_payload[0] = END_STREAM_REASON_INTERNAL;
......
......@@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ connection_or_init_conn_from_address(or_connection_t *conn,
/* Override the addr/port, so our log messages will make sense.
* This is dangerous, since if we ever try looking up a conn by
* its actual addr/port, we won't remember. Careful! */
/* XXXX020 arma: this is stupid, and it's the reason we need real_addr
/* XXXX021 arma: this is stupid, and it's the reason we need real_addr
* to track is_canonical properly. What requires it? */
/* XXXX <arma> i believe the reason we did this, originally, is because
* we wanted to log what OR a connection was to, and if we logged the
......
......@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ dnsserv_resolved(edge_connection_t *conn,
if (!req)
return;
/* XXXX020 Re-do; this is dumb. */
/* XXXX021 Re-do; this is dumb. */
if (ttl < 60)
ttl = 60;
......
......@@ -1829,7 +1829,7 @@ server_port_free(struct evdns_server_port *port)
}
(void) event_del(&port->event);
CLEAR(&port->event);
/* XXXX020 actually free the port? -NM */
/* XXXX021 actually free the port? -NM */
/* XXXX yes, and fix up evdns_close_server_port to dtrt. -NM */
}
......
......@@ -882,7 +882,7 @@ typedef struct connection_t {
/** Annother connection that's connected to this one in lieu of a socket. */
struct connection_t *linked_conn;
/* XXXX020 move this into a subtype!!! */
/* XXXX021 move this into a subtype. */
struct evdns_server_port *dns_server_port;
} connection_t;
......
......@@ -311,7 +311,8 @@ rep_hist_note_router_unreachable(const char *id, time_t when)
if (!started_tracking_stability)
started_tracking_stability = time(NULL);
if (hist && hist->start_of_run) {
/*XXXX020 treat failure specially? */
/*XXXX We could treat failed connections differently from failed
* conect attempts. */
long run_length = when - hist->start_of_run;
hist->weighted_run_length += run_length;
hist->total_run_weights += 1.0;
......@@ -388,7 +389,8 @@ get_stability(or_history_t *hist, time_t when)
return total / total_weights;
}
/** DODDOC */
/** Return the total amount of time we've been observing, with each run of
* time downrated by the appropriate factor. */
static long
get_total_weighted_time(or_history_t *hist, time_t when)
{
......@@ -464,7 +466,7 @@ rep_hist_get_weighted_time_known(const char *id, time_t when)
int
rep_hist_have_measured_enough_stability(void)
{
/* XXXX020 This doesn't do so well when we change our opinion
/* XXXX021 This doesn't do so well when we change our opinion
* as to whether we're tracking router stability. */
return started_tracking_stability < time(NULL) - 4*60*60;
}
......@@ -755,7 +757,11 @@ parse_possibly_bad_iso_time(const char *s, time_t *time_out)
return parse_iso_time(s, time_out);
}
/** DOCDOC */
/** We've read a time <b>t</b> from a file stored at <b>stored_at</b>, which
* says we started measuring at <b>started_measuring</b>. Return a new number
* that's about as much before <b>now</b> as <b>t</b> was before
* <b>stored_at</b>.
*/
static INLINE time_t
correct_time(time_t t, time_t now, time_t stored_at, time_t started_measuring)
{
......@@ -868,7 +874,6 @@ rep_hist_load_mtbf_data(time_t now)
wfu_timebuf[0] = '\0';
if (format == 1) {
/* XXXX020 audit the heck out of my scanf usage. */
n = sscanf(line, "%40s %ld %lf S=%10s %8s",
hexbuf, &wrl, &trw, mtbf_timebuf, mtbf_timebuf+11);
if (n != 3 && n != 5) {
......
......@@ -1388,16 +1388,14 @@ get_max_believable_bandwidth(void)
* If <b>statuses</b> is zero, then <b>sl</b> is a list of
* routerinfo_t's. Otherwise it's a list of routerstatus_t's.
*
* If <b>for_exit</b>, we're picking an exit node: consider all nodes'
* bandwidth equally regardless of their Exit status, since there may be
* some in the list because they exit to obscure ports. If not <b>for_exit</b>,
* we're picking a non-exit node: weight exit-node's bandwidth less
* depending on the smallness of the fraction of Exit-to-total bandwidth.
*
* If <b>for_guard</b>, we're picking a guard node: consider all guard's
* bandwidth equally. Otherwise, weight guards proportionally less.
*
* XXX DOCDOC the above args aren't args anymore
* If <b>rule</b>==WEIGHT_FOR_EXIT. we're picking an exit node: consider all
* nodes' bandwidth equally regardless of their Exit status, since there may
* be some in the list because they exit to obscure ports. If
* <b>rule</b>==NO_WEIGHTING, we're picking a non-exit node: weight
* exit-node's bandwidth less depending on the smallness of the fraction of
* Exit-to-total bandwidth. If <b>rule</b>==WEIGHT_FOR_GUARD, we're picking a
* guard node: consider all guard's bandwidth equally. Otherwise, weight
* guards proportionally less.
*/
static void *
smartlist_choose_by_bandwidth(smartlist_t *sl, bandwidth_weight_rule_t rule,
......@@ -3666,7 +3664,7 @@ launch_router_descriptor_downloads(smartlist_t *downloadable, time_t now)
}
}
}
/* XXX020 should we consider having even the dir mirrors delay
/* XXX should we consider having even the dir mirrors delay
* a little bit, so we don't load the authorities as much? -RD
* I don't think so. If we do, clients that want those descriptors may
* not actually find them if the caches haven't got them yet. -NM
......
Supports Markdown
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment