(Forgot to hit "reply all" in my mail client)
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:22:21 +1000 teor teor@riseup.net wrote:
This ticket is a cleanup ticket, after some other changes have been made. I've edited the ticket description to make that clearer.
Understood, thank you for clarifying.
Check for onion service descriptor uploads: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/33609
Someone else is working on the microdescriptor changes at the moment.
Would you like to start working on the onion service descriptor changes?
Sure, it would give me an opportunity to learn about onion descriptors in more detail. I will get started on it.
But first, looking at it more, I think my struggle with understanding what to do stems from my unfamiliarity with the Chutney codebase (first I have heard of the tool was with this project, even though commits date back to 2011). I need to make sure I understand #33609 sufficiently:
- Is the requested functionality only for Chutney or will Tor potentially need any changes to allow for HS verification? - So I know where to begin looking in the codebase, the ticket wants us to "check each onion service log" -- is this referring to Tor log output (such as the instances chutney spawns), chutney-specific logs, or something else entirely? - For "check v2 and v3 onion services" -- check if they've propagated the network? - For "call it an extra 200% 'bootstrap' stage" -- again is this chutney-specific? I only know bootstrapping percentage from Tor notice-level logging and obviously it only goes up to 100%, so I'm wondering if "200%" is a magic number here or something arbitrary.
From this and the parent #33050 it doesn't seem to me like the request is very clear. I am reading proposals 311-313 after sending this message so maybe I can come across some answers to my questions/confusions via the proposals themselves. The proposals will probably give me a better idea of the work I am in for overall, too, and perhaps I should have come across them sooner. I figure it is wise regardless to ask for clarification here and read while I wait for feedback. Efficiency and all :)
Caitlin
Hi Caitlin,
On 1 Apr 2020, at 18:58, c c@chroniko.jp wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:22:21 +1000 teor teor@riseup.net wrote:
Check for onion service descriptor uploads: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/33609
Someone else is working on the microdescriptor changes at the moment.
Would you like to start working on the onion service descriptor changes?
Sure, it would give me an opportunity to learn about onion descriptors in more detail. I will get started on it.
But first, looking at it more, I think my struggle with understanding what to do stems from my unfamiliarity with the Chutney codebase (first I have heard of the tool was with this project, even though commits date back to 2011).
Chutney is a custom tool that we use to integration test tor networks.
I need to make sure I understand #33609 sufficiently:
- Is the requested functionality only for Chutney or will Tor
potentially need any changes to allow for HS verification?
The required messages are already in tor's onion service logs, so I don't think that tor will need any changes.
I tried to describe the changes in detail on the ticket: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/33609#comment:5
Please let me know if you have any further questions. We're talking in a lot of detail now, so let's continue on the ticket. That way, any reviewers can also see the conversation.
- So I know where to begin looking in the codebase, the ticket wants us
to "check each onion service log" -- is this referring to Tor log output (such as the instances chutney spawns), chutney-specific logs, or something else entirely?
The info-level log output of the tor instances that chutney spawns.
- For "check v2 and v3 onion services" -- check if they've propagated
the network?
Check if v2 and v3 onion services have uploaded their descriptors.
- For "call it an extra 200% 'bootstrap' stage" -- again is this
chutney-specific? I only know bootstrapping percentage from Tor notice-level logging and obviously it only goes up to 100%, so I'm wondering if "200%" is a magic number here or something arbitrary.
It's an arbitrary number, greater than 100%, so we can integrate it with the existing bootstrap checks. (But that might not be necessary.)
From this and the parent #33050 it doesn't seem to me like the request is very clear.
You're right, the ticket contains my rough notes and hints. I didn't know what level of detail people would need.
I am reading proposals 311-313 after sending this message so maybe I can come across some answers to my questions/confusions via the proposals themselves. The proposals will probably give me a better idea of the work I am in for overall, too, and perhaps I should have come across them sooner.
The proposals might help, but they are mainly focused on tor changes, not chutney changes.
I figure it is wise regardless to ask for clarification here and read while I wait for feedback. Efficiency and all :)
Please feel free to ask further questions on this list. But let's try to have detailed discussions on the relevant tickets, so reviewers can see the conversation.
Thanks!
T
-
c -
teor