[tor-bugs] #1090 [Tor Client]: Warning about using an excluded node for exit

Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki torproject-admin at torproject.org
Tue Feb 8 21:10:25 UTC 2011


#1090: Warning about using an excluded node for exit
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
        Reporter:  Sebastian   |        Owner:  nickm             
            Type:  defect      |       Status:  assigned          
        Priority:  major       |    Milestone:  Tor: 0.2.2.x-final
       Component:  Tor Client  |      Version:  0.2.1.19          
      Resolution:  None        |     Keywords:                    
          Parent:              |       Points:                    
Actualpointsdone:              |   Pointsdone:                    
    Actualpoints:              |  
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Comment(by nickm):

 Replying to [comment:26 arma]:
 > Notice how I have a NODE_USAGE_MIDDLE here -- I'm not sure if that's the
 same as your NODE_USAGE_RELAY. One way they could be different is because
 when we're choosing a middle hop, we want to weight our load balancing
 away from entry and exit hops proportional to the weights in the
 consensus. Did you envision using these NODE_USAGE values pervasively
 enough in the code that we also use them to tell
 routerlist_sl_choose_by_bandwidth(), router_choose_random_node(), etc the
 role of the node in the circuit? My guess is that you do?

 Well, my "NODE_USAGE_" idea was a bit orthogonal to this: it tried to
 subsume position and circuit type into one thing; NODE_USAGE_RELAY would
 have been the usage for the middle node of every type of multihop circuit.

 I think that having "position within circuit" and "type of circuit" as
 separate things is a good idea.

 > Is this crazy-talk that's way more invasive than what you were
 imagining, or just fleshing out the same ideas?

 It's a logical next-step here, I think.


 Replying to [comment:27 arma]:
 > That's fine by me -- especially because the node_t changes in 0.2.3.x
 will mean significant forward-porting effort from 0.2.2.x that is mostly a
 waste.

 Agreed.  Now I'm just trying to tell whether it makes more sense to code
 the 0.2.3.x thing first on the theory that doing so will point out all the
 cases in 0.2.2.x where we need to change the code, or to do the 0.2.2.x
 thing first on the theory that some of the code will surely be forward-
 portable.  Decisions, decisions!

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/1090#comment:28>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online


More information about the tor-bugs mailing list