[tbb-dev] Tor Browser uplift tracker

Arthur D. Edelstein arthuredelstein at gmail.com
Thu Feb 1 00:11:35 UTC 2018

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Georg Koppen <gk at torproject.org> wrote:

Hi Georg,

Thanks for looking through the list! I addressed each of your points
below. (Please see my questions below about 14 and 20.)

> 1) According to Richard the patch for #23016 does not need uplift.

Oops, I remember he said that now. Fixed.

> 2) I am not sure whether we want to uplift #21431. I think we can leave
> it as "no uplift" for now.

OK, tagged is tbb-no-uplift-60

> 3) f4dd994 could be "no uplift" right now.


> 5) #21907: "no uplift". There won't be an option to build with GTK2
> anymore for ESR 60.

Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.

> 6) #21849: "no uplift" for now I think. See: bugs 1183318 and 1188657
> for the Mozilla discussion.

Tagged as tbb-no-uplift-60.

> 7) Not sure if "uplifted" means "we are done here". If so, the patch for
> #5741 is in the wrong category. See:
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/21611#comment:5

I opened a new ticket for that.

> 8) #14970: "no uplift".

Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.

> 9) 5e2ac8a is already uplifted.

Actually, I'm not 100% sure the fix they made is the same fix. So I'm
slightly nervous about marking it as uplifted. I have a NEEDINFO on
bmo to look at it more closely.

> 10) #13252: I am inclined to say "no uplift" as this patch only exists
> because we need to ship an own bundle (which we don't want to do if we
> are done with our Firefox fork).

Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.

> 11) #13379: probably "no uplift" (for now at least). At any rate we'd
> need to investigate first what we still need to carry over to ESR 60
> here, given that https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1105689
> got fixed.

Tagged as tbb-no-uplift-60.

> 12) #21724: "no uplift", the reasoning is the same as in 10).

Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.

> 13) #18912: seems worth trying to uplift.


> 14) #19121: it seems this is WONTFIX for Mozilla right now? I guess we
> keep it and make our argument later again? Or we argue along the lines
> of 10) and bite the bullet.

I looked at our discussion yesterday but I don't really understand the
what our patch is fixing. What's the advantage in doing a separate
hash check if there is a signature verification (which presumably
includes a hash check anyway)?

Tagging as tbb-no-uplift-60

> 15) #18900: "uplift" according to
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1159090#c4 I guess.

I opened https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1434666

> 16) #11641: "no uplift", the reasoning is the same as in 10).

Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.

> 17) #9173: I am not sure but after skimming over it, it seems like "no
> uplift" with reasoning like in 10)?

Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.

> 18) #18995: Seems worth uplifting to me (in case Mozilla does not have
> similar test already).

I opened https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1434772

> 19) #3875: "no uplift" right now. I am more and more convinced we need a
> new patch for this idea (if at all) as the current one seems to be
> wrong. See: #19910 and above all dcf's amazing
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/24432#comment:19.

Tagged as tbb-no-uplift.

> 20) #5282: "no uplift". The whole pipelining code is gone and Mike is
> fine having our patch removed in that wake, too.

OK! Shall I remove it from my TBB-ESR60 branch? Also tagged as tbb-no-uplift.

> 21) #16488: "no uplift" yet at least. We don't even have a proper patch
> ready right now: see #22564 for instance.

I took another look at #22564 and I think there is some hope of
uplifting after we complete it. So I opened
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1434706 for now.

> Do all new patches somehow block the META Tor uplift bug? (e.g.
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1432905? Shouldn't that
> block 1433504 at least?)

Good point -- I'll work on blocking the meta_tor bug. And you're right
about the ProxyBypass depending on 1432905 as well.


More information about the tbb-dev mailing list