feat: webconnectivity long term evolution prototype

See ooni/probe#2237

internal/experiment/webconnectivity/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# webconnectivity
+
+This directory contains a new implementation of [Web Connectivity](
+https://github.com/ooni/spec/blob/master/nettests/ts-017-web-connectivity.md).
+
+As of 2022-08-26, this code is experimental and is not selected
+by default when you run the `websites` group. You can select this
+implementation with `miniooni` using `miniooni web_connectivity@v0.5`
+from the command line.
+
+Issue [#2237](https://github.com/ooni/probe/issues/2237) explains the rationale
+behind writing this new implementation.
+
+## Implementation overview
+
+The experiment measures a single URL at a time. The OONI Engine invokes the
+`Measurer.Run` method inside the [measurer.go](measurer.go) file.
+
+This code starts a number of background tasks, waits for them to complete, and
+finally calls `TestKeys.finalize` to finalize the contet of the JSON measurement.
+
+The first task that is started is deals with DNS and lives in the
+[dnsresolvers.go](dnsresolvers.go) file. This task is responsible for
+resolving the domain inside the URL into `0..N` IP addresses.
+
+The domain resolution includes the system resolver and a DNS-over-UDP
+resolver. The implementaion _may_ do more than that, but this is the
+bare minimum we're feeling like documenting right now. (We need to
+experiment a bit more to understand what else we can do there, hence
+the code is _probably_ doing more than just that.)
+
+Once we know the `0..N` IP addresses for the domain we do the following:
+
+1. start a background task to communicate with the Web Connectivity
+test helper, using code inside [control.go](control.go);
+
+2. start an endpoint measurement task for each IP adddress (which of
+course only happens when we know _at least_ one addr).
+
+Regarding starting endpoint measurements, we follow this policy:
+
+1. if the original URL is `http://...` then we start a cleartext task
+and an encrypted task for each address using ports `80` and `443`
+respectively.
+
+2. if it's `https://...`, then we only start encrypted tasks.
+
+Cleartext tasks are implemented by [cleartextflow.go](cleartextflow.go) while
+encrypted tasks live in [secureflow.go](secureflow.go).
+
+A cleartext task does the following:
+
+1. TCP connect;
+
+2. additionally, the first task to establish a connection also performs
+a GET request to fetch a webpage.
+
+An encrypted task does the following:
+
+1. TCP connect;
+
+2. TLS handshake;
+
+3. additionally, the first task to handshake also performs
+a GET request to fetch a webpage _iff_ the input URL was `https://...`
+
+If fetching the webpage returns a redirection, we start a new DNS task passing it
+the redirect URL as the new URL to measure. We do not call the test helper again
+when this happens, though. The Web Connectivity test helper already follows the whole
+redirect chain, so we would need to change the test helper to get information on
+each flow. When this will happen, this experiment will probably not be Web Connectivity
+anymore, but rather some form of [websteps](https://github.com/bassosimone/websteps-illustrated/).
+
+Additionally, when the test helper terminates, we run TCP connect and TLS handshake
+(when applicable) for new IP addresses discovered usiong the test helper that were
+previously unknown to the probe, thus collecting extra information.
+
+As previously mentioned, when all tasks complete, we call `TestKeys.finalize`.
+
+In turn, this function analyzes the collected data:
+
+- [analysiscore.go](analysiscore.go) contains the core analysis algorithm;
+
+- [analysisdns.go](analysisdns.go) contains DNS specific analysis;
+
+- [analysishttpcore.go](analysishttpcore.go) contains the bulk of the HTTP
+analysis, where we mainly determine TLS blocking;
+
+- [analysishttpdiff.go](analysishttpdiff.go) contains the HTTP diff algorithm;
+
+- [analysistcpip.go](analysistcpip.go) checks for TCP/IP blocking.
+
+## Data model
+
+All the test keys that are not part of the original Web Connectivity have
+the `x_` prefix to indicate that they are experimental and may change.
+
+## Limitations and next steps
+
+We need to extent the Web Connectivity test helper to return us information
+about TLS handshakes with IP addresses discovered by the probe. This information
+would allow us to make more precise TLS blocking statements.
+
+Further changes are probably possible. Departing too radically from the Web
+Connectivity model, will lead us to have a Websteps implementation (but then
+the data model would probably be different).

internal/experiment/webconnectivity/analysiscore.go

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+package webconnectivity
+
+import "github.com/ooni/probe-cli/v3/internal/model"
+
+//
+// Core analysis
+//
+
+// These flags determine the context of TestKeys.Blocking. However, while .Blocking
+// is an enumeration, these flags allow to describe multiple blocking methods.
+const (
+	// analysisFlagDNSBlocking indicates there's blocking at the DNS level.
+	analysisFlagDNSBlocking = 1 << iota
+
+	// analysisFlagTCPIPBlocking indicates there's blocking at the TCP/IP level.
+	analysisFlagTCPIPBlocking
+
+	// analysisFlagTLSBlocking indicates there were TLS issues.
+	analysisFlagTLSBlocking
+
+	// analysisFlagHTTPBlocking indicates there was an HTTP failure.
+	analysisFlagHTTPBlocking
+
+	// analysisFlagHTTPDiff indicates there's an HTTP diff.
+	analysisFlagHTTPDiff
+
+	// analysisFlagSuccess indicates we did not detect any blocking.
+	analysisFlagSuccess
+)
+
+// analysisToplevel is the toplevel function that analyses the results
+// of the experiment once all network tasks have completed.
+//
+// The ultimate objective of this function is to set the toplevel flags
+// used by the backend to score results. These flags are:
+//
+// - blocking (and x_blocking_flags) which contain information about
+// the detected blocking method (or methods);
+//
+// - accessible which contains information on whether we think we
+// could access the resource somehow.
+//
+// Originally, Web Connectivity only had a blocking scalar value so
+// we could see ourselves in one of the following cases:
+//
+//     +----------+------------+--------------------------+
+//     | Blocking | Accessible | Meaning                  |
+//     +----------+------------+--------------------------+
+//     | null     | null       | Probe analysis error     |
+//     +----------+------------+--------------------------+
+//     | false    | true       | We detected no blocking  |
+//     +----------+------------+--------------------------+
+//     | "..."    | false      | We detected blocking     |
+//     +----------+------------+--------------------------+
+//
+// While it would be possible in this implementation, which has a granular
+// definition of blocking (x_blocking_flags), to set accessible to mean
+// whether we could access the resource in some conditions, it seems quite
+// dangerous to deviate from the original behavior.
+//
+// Our code will NEVER set .Blocking or .Accessible outside of this function
+// and we'll instead rely on XBlockingFlags. This function's job is to call
+// other functions that compute the .XBlockingFlags and then to assign the value
+// of .Blocking and .Accessible from the .XBlockingFlags value.
+//
+// Accordingly, this is how we map the value of the .XBlockingFlags to the
+// values of .Blocking and .Accessible:
+//
+//     +--------------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
+//     | XBlockingFlags                       | .Blocking      | .Accessible |
+//     +--------------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
+//     | (& DNSBlocking) != 0                 | "dns"          | false       |
+//     +--------------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
+//     | (& TCPIPBlocking) != 0               | "tcp_ip"       | false       |
+//     +--------------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
+//     | (& (TLSBlocking|HTTPBlocking)) != 0  | "http-failure" | false       |
+//     +--------------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
+//     | (& HTTPDiff) != 0                    | "http-diff"    | false       |
+//     +--------------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
+//     | == FlagSuccess                       | false          | true        |
+//     +--------------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
+//     | otherwise                            | null           | null        |
+//     +--------------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
+//
+// It's a very simple rule, that should preserve previous semantics.
+func (tk *TestKeys) analysisToplevel(logger model.Logger) {
+	// Since we run after all tasks have completed (or so we assume) we're
+	// not going to use any form of locking here.
+
+	// these functions compute the value of XBlockingFlags
+	tk.analysisDNSToplevel(logger)
+	tk.analysisTCPIPToplevel(logger)
+	tk.analysisHTTPToplevel(logger)
+
+	// now, let's determine .Accessible and .Blocking
+	switch {
+	case (tk.BlockingFlags & analysisFlagDNSBlocking) != 0:
+		tk.Blocking = "dns"
+		tk.Accessible = false
+		logger.Warnf(
+			"ANOMALY: flags=%d accessible=%+v, blocking=%+v",
+			tk.BlockingFlags, tk.Accessible, tk.Blocking,
+		)
+
+	case (tk.BlockingFlags & analysisFlagTCPIPBlocking) != 0:
+		tk.Blocking = "tcp_ip"
+		tk.Accessible = false
+		logger.Warnf(
+			"ANOMALY: flags=%d accessible=%+v, blocking=%+v",
+			tk.BlockingFlags, tk.Accessible, tk.Blocking,
+		)
+
+	case (tk.BlockingFlags & (analysisFlagTLSBlocking | analysisFlagHTTPBlocking)) != 0:
+		tk.Blocking = "http-failure"
+		tk.Accessible = false
+		logger.Warnf("ANOMALY: flags=%d accessible=%+v, blocking=%+v",
+			tk.BlockingFlags, tk.Accessible, tk.Blocking,
+		)
+
+	case (tk.BlockingFlags & analysisFlagHTTPDiff) != 0:
+		tk.Blocking = "http-diff"
+		tk.Accessible = false
+		logger.Warnf(
+			"ANOMALY: flags=%d accessible=%+v, blocking=%+v",
+			tk.BlockingFlags, tk.Accessible, tk.Blocking,
+		)
+
+	case tk.BlockingFlags == analysisFlagSuccess:
+		tk.Blocking = false
+		tk.Accessible = true
+		logger.Infof(
+			"SUCCESS: flags=%d accessible=%+v, blocking=%+v",
+			tk.BlockingFlags, tk.Accessible, tk.Blocking,
+		)
+
+	default:
+		tk.Blocking = nil
+		tk.Accessible = nil
+		logger.Warnf(
+			"UNKNOWN: flags=%d, accessible=%+v, blocking=%+v",
+			tk.BlockingFlags, tk.Accessible, tk.Blocking,
+		)
+	}
+}