Implement ed25519 link handshake

In #12498 (moved) , we implement a new identity key type. Now it's time to use it in a proper handshake as documented in proposal 220.

changed milestone to %Tor: 0.3.0.x-final

added 027-triaged-1-in 028-triaged 201511-deferred 201512-deferred TorCoreTeam201609 component::core tor/tor milestone::Tor: 0.3.0.x-final nickm-deferred-20161005 owner::nickm parent::15054 points::parent priority::high prop-220 resolution::implemented review-group-11 reviewer::isis severity::normal sponsor::U-must status::closed tor-crypto-identity tor-ed25519-proto tor-relay type::enhancement version::tor 0.2.7 labels

Trac:
Status: new to assigned

Marking more tickets as triaged-in for 0.2.7

Trac:
Keywords: tor-relay prop-220 deleted, prop-220, tor-relay, 027-triaged-1-in added

Trac:
Keywords: N/A deleted, SponsorU added
Version: N/A to Tor: 0.2.7
Priority: normal to major
Points: N/A to large

Trac:
Owner: N/A to nickm

Trac:
Keywords: N/A deleted, TorCoreTeam201507 added

Trac:
Keywords: TorCoreTeam201507 deleted, TorCoreTeam201508 added

Trac:
Milestone: Tor: 0.2.7.x-final to Tor: 0.2.8.x-final
Keywords: TorCoreTeam201508 deleted, TorCoreTeam201509 added

Trac:
Keywords: N/A deleted, 028-triaged added

Bulk-replace SponsorU keyword with SponsorU field.

Trac:
Sponsor: N/A to SponsorU
Keywords: SponsorU deleted, N/A added

Trac:
Keywords: N/A deleted, TorCoreTeam201511 added

Trac:
Type: defect to enhancement

Bulk-move uncompleted items to december. :/

Trac:
Keywords: TorCoreTeam201511 deleted, TorCoreTeam201512, 201511-deferred added

Perhaps in January?

Trac:
Keywords: TorCoreTeam201512 deleted, TorCoreTeam201601, 201512-deferred added

Bulk-modify: It is February 2016, and no longer possible that anything else will get done in January 2016. Time's arrow and all that.

Trac:
Keywords: TorCoreTeam201601 deleted, TorCoreTeam201602 added

These seem like features, or like other stuff unlikely to be possible this month. Bumping them to 0.2.9

Trac:
Milestone: Tor: 0.2.8.x-final to Tor: 0.2.9.x-final

Trac:
Sponsor: SponsorU to SponsorU-must

Removing TorCoreTeam201509 from these tickets, since we do not own a time machine.

Trac:
Keywords: TorCoreTeam201509 deleted, N/A added

Trac:
Keywords: TorCoreTeam201602 deleted, N/A added

Trac:
Keywords: N/A deleted, tor-crypto-identity added

Trac:
Keywords: N/A deleted, tor-ed25519-proto added

Give myself a few items for May. I hope I can do even more than this, but let's be careful.

Trac:
Keywords: N/A deleted, TorCoreTeam201605 added

I'm now working in 15055_wip, which I am rebasing a LOT. You probably don't want to look yet.

Trac:
Severity: N/A to Normal
Reviewer: N/A to N/A

Trac:
Points: large to 6

Okay, going to try to wrap all this up next week. That will be a challenge. Here are the pieces of it, to break it down into little edible bites:

• Fix #19020 (moved).
• Servers connecting to servers send all correct authentication information when protocol permits.
• Servers receiving connections send all certificates (when protocol permits?)
• Servers receiving connections from servers check authentication information, make correct decisions.
• Anyone connecting to a server checks all certs (if provided)
• Add an ed25519_id_key item to or_connection_t / channel_t.
• Index those by ed25519 id.
• (non)profit.

Trac:
Points: 6 to parent

Remove "TorCoreTeam201605" keyword. The time machine is broken.

Trac:
Keywords: TorCoreTeam201605 deleted, N/A added

Status: I believe I will finish the core implementation today or tomorrow. The testing and debugging and reviewing will take a bit longer.

Implementation is done here; more testing needed, though.

Trac:
Keywords: tor-ed25519-proto deleted, tor-ed25519-proto TorCoreTeam201609 added

Batch-tagging a bunch of tickets assigned to me: I believe these are all done or mostly done or done-enough.

Trac:
Keywords: tor-ed25519-proto TorCoreTeam201609 deleted, tor-ed25519-proto, TorCoreTeam201609, nickm-check-done-20160905 added

My unit tests now test the success cases of the code. Next, to test the failing cases (all of them).

Now at long last ready for review.

My branch is feature_15055 in my public repository.

There is a gitlab PR to put comments on at: https://gitlab.com/nickm_tor/tor/merge_requests/7/commits

Trac:
Status: assigned to needs_review

Trac:
Keywords: N/A deleted, review-group-9 added

Trac:
Keywords: nickm-check-done-20160905 deleted, N/A added

Review can be found in gitlab. Hope this help.

Trac:
Status: needs_review to needs_revision

Trac:
Reviewer: N/A to isis
Status: needs_revision to needs_review

There's some docstrings for functions in src/or/routerkeys.c, which didn't have any before and which I ran into during my review, in my feature/15055 branch. (I also marked some other functions in that module with DOCDOC, because I didn't need to figure out what they do at the moment.)

I'm about halfway done with review (on gitlab).

I just cherry-picked those commits onto my branch

Deferring big/risky-feature things (even the ones I really love!) to 0.3.0. Please argue if I'm wrong.

Trac:
Milestone: Tor: 0.2.9.x-final to Tor: 0.3.0.x-final
Keywords: N/A deleted, nickm-deferred-20161005 added

Moving not-reviewed-by-me tickets in review-group-9, and for-0.2.9/0.2.8 tickets, to review-group-10.

Trac:
Keywords: review-group-9 deleted, review-group-10 added

Moving these to review-group-11.

Trac:
Keywords: N/A deleted, review-group-11 added

Trac:
Keywords: review-group-10 deleted, N/A added

Okay, review complete: https://gitlab.com/nickm_tor/tor/merge_requests/7

There's some minor complaints about documenting that we expect future AUTHCHALLENGE types to always be better than previously defined types, which is probably true, but if we're depending on that maybe we should note it?

Overall, it looks good and can be merged.

Trac:
Status: needs_review to merge_ready

I've added comments there, and squashed the branch into a feature15055_v2, and merged it. Tests pass!

Trac:
Status: merge_ready to closed
Resolution: N/A to implemented

The LinkAuth protover was not updated in this patch, and it should have been. I opened #20578 (moved) to address that.

closed

mentioned in issue #15056 (moved)