commit 3b8a1436c962157ac31e926fc16d5ff7e01ccd52 Author: Nick Mathewson nickm@torproject.org Date: Mon Mar 14 12:27:36 2022 -0400
Proposal 338: Use an 8-byte timestamp in NETINFO cells --- proposals/000-index.txt | 2 ++ proposals/338-netinfo-y2038.md | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ proposals/BY_INDEX.md | 1 + proposals/README.md | 1 + 4 files changed, 83 insertions(+)
diff --git a/proposals/000-index.txt b/proposals/000-index.txt index 40152dd..c078e13 100644 --- a/proposals/000-index.txt +++ b/proposals/000-index.txt @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ Proposals by number: 335 An authority-only design for MiddleOnly [CLOSED] 336 Randomized schedule for guard retries [OPEN] 337 A simpler way to decide, "Is this guard usable?" [OPEN] +338 Use an 8-byte timestamp in NETINFO cells [OPEN]
Proposals by status: @@ -300,6 +301,7 @@ Proposals by status: 330 Modernizing authority contact entries 336 Randomized schedule for guard retries 337 A simpler way to decide, "Is this guard usable?" + 338 Use an 8-byte timestamp in NETINFO cells ACCEPTED: 265 Load Balancing with Overhead Parameters [for 0.2.9.x] 275 Stop including meaningful "published" time in microdescriptor consensus [for 0.3.1.x-alpha] diff --git a/proposals/338-netinfo-y2038.md b/proposals/338-netinfo-y2038.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a1a0385 --- /dev/null +++ b/proposals/338-netinfo-y2038.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +``` +Filename: 338-netinfo-y2038.md +Title: Use an 8-byte timestamp in NETINFO cells +Author: Nick Mathewson +Created: 2022-03-14 +Status: Open +``` + +# Introduction + +Currently Tor relays use a 4-byte timestamp (in seconds since the Unix +epoch) in their NETINFO cells. Notoriously, such a timestamp will +overflow on 19 January 2038. + +Let's get ahead of the problem and squash this issue now, by expanding +the timestamp to 8 bytes. (8 bytes worth of seconds will be long enough +to outlast the Earth's sun.) + +# Proposed change + +I propose adding a new link protocol version. (The next one in +sequence, as of this writing, is version 6.) + +I propose that we change the text of tor-spec section 4.5 from: + +``` + TIME (Timestamp) [4 bytes] +``` + +to + +``` + TIME (Timestamp) [4 or 8 bytes *] +``` + +and specify that this field is 4 bytes wide on link protocols 1-5, but 8 +bytes wide on link protocols 6 and beyond. + +# Rejected alternatives + +Our protocol specifies that parties MUST ignore extra data at the end of +cells. Therefore we _could_ add additional data at the end of the +NETINFO cell, and use that to store the high 4 bytes of the timestamp +without having to increase the link protocol version number. I propose +that we don't do that: it's ugly. + +As another alternative, we could declare that parties must interpret the +timestamp such that its high 4 bytes place it as close as possible to +their current time. I'm rejecting this kludge because it would give +confusing results in the too-common case where clients have their clocks +mis-set to Jan 1, 1970. + +# Impacts on our implementations + +Arti won't be able to implement this change until it supports connection +padding (as required by link protocol 5), which is currently planned for +the next Arti milestone (1.0.0, scheduled for this fall). + +If we think that that's a problem, or if we want to have support for +implementations without connection padding in the future, we should +reconsider this plan so that connection padding support is independent +from 8-byte timestamps. + +# Other timestamps in Tor + +I've done a cursory search of our protocols to see if we have any other +instances of the Y2038 problem. + +There is a 4-byte timestamp in `cert-spec`, but that one is an unsigned +integer counting _hours_ since the Unix epoch, which will keep it from +wrapping around till 478756 C.E. (The rollover date of "10136 CE" +reported in `cert-spec` is wrong, and seems to be based on the +misapprehension that the counter is in *minutes*.) + +The v2 onion service protocol has 4-byte timestamps, but it is +thoroughly deprecated and unsupported. + +I couldn't find any other 4-byte timestamps, but that is no guarantee: +others should look for them too. diff --git a/proposals/BY_INDEX.md b/proposals/BY_INDEX.md index e6bf782..484ad13 100644 --- a/proposals/BY_INDEX.md +++ b/proposals/BY_INDEX.md @@ -255,4 +255,5 @@ Below are a list of proposals sorted by their proposal number. See * [`335-middle-only-redux.md`](/proposals/335-middle-only-redux.md): An authority-only design for MiddleOnly [CLOSED] * [`336-randomize-guard-retries.md`](/proposals/336-randomize-guard-retries.md): Randomized schedule for guard retries [OPEN] * [`337-simpler-guard-usability.md`](/proposals/337-simpler-guard-usability.md): A simpler way to decide, "Is this guard usable?" [OPEN] +* [`338-netinfo-y2038.md`](/proposals/338-netinfo-y2038.md): Use an 8-byte timestamp in NETINFO cells [OPEN]
diff --git a/proposals/README.md b/proposals/README.md index 512ea26..8152d8b 100644 --- a/proposals/README.md +++ b/proposals/README.md @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ for discussion. * [`330-authority-contact.md`](/proposals/330-authority-contact.md): Modernizing authority contact entries * [`336-randomize-guard-retries.md`](/proposals/336-randomize-guard-retries.md): Randomized schedule for guard retries * [`337-simpler-guard-usability.md`](/proposals/337-simpler-guard-usability.md): A simpler way to decide, "Is this guard usable?" +* [`338-netinfo-y2038.md`](/proposals/338-netinfo-y2038.md): Use an 8-byte timestamp in NETINFO cells
## ACCEPTED proposals: slated for implementation