Our authentication is based on device ID (certificate fingerprint) but
we also check the certificate name for ... historical extra security
reasons. (I don't think this adds anything but it is what it is.) Since
that check breaks in Go 1.15 this change does two things:
- Adds a manual check for the peer certificate CommonName, and if they
are equal we are happy and don't call the more advanced
VerifyHostname() function. This allows our old style certificates to
still pass the check.
- Adds the cert name "syncthing" as a DNS SAN when generating the
certificate. This is the correct way nowadays and makes VerifyHostname()
happy in Go 1.15 as well, even without the above patch.
Apparently our Tags field depended on having specific files react to
tags and add themselves there. This, instead, works for all tags.
Also, pass tags to the test command line.
The QUIC package is notorious for being incompatible with either too
old or too new Go releases. Currently it doesn't build with Go 1.15 RC
and I want to test the rest with Go 1.15. With this I can do `go run
build.go --tags noquic` to do that.
With this change we emulate a case sensitive filesystem on top of
insensitive filesystems. This means we correctly pick up case-only renames
and throw a case conflict error when there would be multiple files differing
only in case.
This safety check has a small performance hit (about 20% more filesystem
operations when scanning for changes). The new advanced folder option
`caseSensitiveFS` can be used to disable the safety checks, retaining the
previous behavior on systems known to be fully case sensitive.
Co-authored-by: Jakob Borg <jakob@kastelo.net>
Prompted by https://forum.syncthing.net/t/infinite-filesystem-recursion-detected/15285. In my opinion the filesystem shouldn't throw warnings but pass on errors for the caller to decide what's to be happening with it. Right now in this PR an infinite recursion is a normal scan error, i.e. folder is in failed state and displays failed items, but no warning. I think that's appropriate but if deemed appropriate an additional warning can be thrown in the scanner.
This fixes the change in #6674 where the weak hash became a deciding
factor. Now we again just use it to accept a block, but don't take a
negative as meaning the block is bad.
This fixes the change in #6674 where the weak hash became a deciding
factor. Now we again just use it to accept a block, but don't take a
negative as meaning the block is bad.
Jakob Borg
Audrius ButkeviciusandGitHub
Simon FreiandGitHub
Alex LindemanandGitHub
HansK-pandGitHub
