On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:53:42 -0500 Praedor Atrebates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am running Mandriva linux 2009.0. I have been using tork (as a tor manager) >and tor for several years with a bunch of problems only occurring since going >to 2009.0 AND upgrading to tor 0.2.1.7-alpha. Before this, I ran tor and tork >AND access IRC (via Konversation in KDE) without problems. > >I've checked processes when tor appears to die and it really is dead. I check >the debug log and there is literally nothing there to indicate any problems >whatsoever, just a message that tor died: > >Nov 20 16:21:54.219 [info] command_process_netinfo_cell(): Got good NETINFO >cell from [scrubbed]; OR connection is now open, using protocol version 2 > >Nov 20 16:21:54.219 [debug] connection_or_process_cells_from_inbuf(): 59: >starting, inbuf_datalen 0 (0 pending in tls object). > >Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] conn_read_callback(): socket 59 wants to read. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] connection_read_to_buf(): 59: starting, >inbuf_datalen 0 (0 pending in tls object). at_most 12288. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] connection_read_to_buf(): After TLS read of 512: >586 read, 0 written > >Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] connection_or_process_cells_from_inbuf(): 59: >starting, inbuf_datalen 512 (0 pending in tls object). > >Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] command_process_create_cell(): success: handed off >onionskin. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] connection_or_process_cells_from_inbuf(): 59: >starting, inbuf_datalen 0 (0 pending in tls object). > >Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] conn_write_callback(): socket 5 wants to write. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] cpuworker_main(): onion_skin_server_handshake >succeeded. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] conn_read_callback(): socket 5 wants to read. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] read_to_chunk(): Read 231 bytes. 231 on inbuf. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] onionskin_answer(): init digest forward >0xb2ff98cd, backward 0xb12cc861. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] append_cell_to_circuit_queue(): Made a circuit >active. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] append_cell_to_circuit_queue(): Primed a buffer. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] connection_or_flush_from_first_active_circuit(): >Made a circuit inactive. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] onionskin_answer(): Finished sending 'created' >cell. >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] connection_cpu_process_inbuf(): onionskin_answer >succeeded. Yay. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] conn_write_callback(): socket 59 wants to write. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] flush_chunk_tls(): flushed 512 bytes, 0 ready to >flush, 0 remain. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] connection_handle_write(): After TLS write of 512: >0 read, 586 written > >Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] cpuworker_main(): finished writing response. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.610 [notice] Catching signal TERM, exiting cleanly. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So what sent tor a SIGTERM? Given receipt of a SIGTERM, what follows appears to be normal enough. The question occurs to me whether if tor detects another tor process running under the same user id, will it issue a SIGTERM itself either to the other process or to itself to prevent conflicts (e.g., two tors bound to the same ORPort, DirPort, etc.)?
>Nov 20 16:21:54.611 [info] or_state_save(): Saved state to >"/home/praedor/.tor/state" > >Nov 20 16:21:54.717 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 8. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.717 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 15. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.717 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 24. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.717 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 25. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.717 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 5. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.717 [info] cpuworker_main(): CPU worker exiting because Tor >process closed connection (either rotated keys or died). > >Nov 20 16:21:54.718 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 43. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.719 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 50. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.719 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 45. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.719 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 44. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.719 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 47. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.720 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 46. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.720 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 48. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.720 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 49. > >Nov 20 16:21:54.720 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 51. >Nov 20 16:21:54.720 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 52. >Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 61. >Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [info] _connection_free(): Freeing linked Directory >connection [client reading] with 0 bytes on inbuf, 0 on outbuf. >Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [info] _connection_free(): Freeing linked Socks connection >[open] with 0 bytes on inbuf, 0 on outbuf. >Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 53. >Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 56. >Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 54. >Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 55. >Nov 20 16:21:54.722 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 57. >Nov 20 16:21:54.722 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 58. >Nov 20 16:21:54.723 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 59. >Nov 20 16:21:54.723 [info] buf_shrink_freelists(): Cleaning freelist for 4096- >byte chunks: keeping 0, dropping 18. >Nov 20 16:21:54.723 [info] buf_shrink_freelists(): Cleaning freelist for 8192- >byte chunks: keeping 0, dropping 61. >Nov 20 16:21:54.724 [info] buf_shrink_freelists(): Cleaning freelist for >16384-byte chunks: keeping 0, dropping 2. >Nov 20 16:21:54.724 [info] buf_shrink_freelists(): Cleaning freelist for >32768-byte chunks: keeping 0, dropping 1. > >I have now uninstalled (again) tor-0.2.1.7-alpha and installed the 2009.0 >package for tor instead, tor-0.2.0.31, and it is (and has been) working >without hitch since I started it. There appears to be something about 0.2.1.7 >specifically that causes problems. Prior to upgrading to it I was running >tor-0.2.1.6, also without problem. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************