#25061: Relays consider it a bootstrapping failure if they can't extend for somebody else's circuit -------------------------------------------------+------------------------- Reporter: arma | Owner: | catalyst Type: defect | Status: | assigned Priority: Medium | Milestone: Tor: | 0.3.3.x-final Component: Core Tor/Tor | Version: Severity: Normal | Resolution: Keywords: backport-032, 033-must, stability, | Actual Points: 033-triage-20180320, 033-included-20180320 | Parent ID: | Points: Reviewer: | Sponsor: -------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Comment (by catalyst): I'm still looking into how best to do this. I think I'm starting to wrap my brain around it. What you call '''approach one''' and '''approach two''' differ in several ways, one of which is I suspect '''approach two''' would tend to minimize textual changes to existing code (which might be a reasonable goal for a 0.3.3 patch). A downside of '''approach two''' is pushing more higher-level state and logic into lower-level code, so I think it's not the best solution in the long term. The status quo is that lower-level code has logic to use higher-level state to decide whether to call `control_event_bootstrap_prob_or()`. I think we should restructure things so that higher-level code has the necessary information from lower levels to make this decision, which weighs in favor of '''approach one'''. Maybe that's best done as a separate ticket, but I would like to try to make the existing abstractions cleaner instead of messier. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/25061#comment:10> Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/> The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________ tor-bugs mailing list tor-bugs@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs