[tor-bugs] #4567 [Tor Bridge]: Extend Tor's UPnP support for pluggable transport ports

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#4567: Extend Tor's UPnP support for pluggable transport ports
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  karsten     |          Owner:  asn                     
     Type:  project     |         Status:  new                     
 Priority:  normal      |      Milestone:  Sponsor G: June 30, 2012
Component:  Tor Bridge  |        Version:                          
 Keywords:              |         Parent:                          
   Points:              |   Actualpoints:                          
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------

Comment(by ioerror):

 Replying to [comment:1 asn]:
 > I haven't started coding on this deliverable yet, but I've thought of a
 rough implementation plan:
 >
 > - I will need to refactor `tor_check_port_forwarding()` to accept a
 smartlist of ports, instead of just two.
 >

 Sounds fine. Please ensure that an ORPort is always present - that is - we
 need to know when the core port doesn't work - having only a DirPort isn't
 important, right?

 > - I will need to refactor `tor-fw-helper.c` to accept multiple ports.
 Currently, it only accepts `DirPort` and `ORPort`, and it uses different
 functions for each port type (`tor_fw_add_dir_port()` and
 `tor_fw_add_or_port()`), but I'm not sure why. It might make sense to
 generalize those functions so that `tor-fw-helper` doesn't care what kind
 of port it forwards (except if there is a reason to care).
 >

 An ORPort is not optional - every Tor must have at least a single ORPort.
 It's a fatal error otherwise.

 > - I should then find how to call `tor-fw-helper` from
 `run_scheduled_events()` correctly. That is, should I wait till all the
 transport proxies are configured and then call it? Or should I call `tor-
 fw-helper` just for the `ORPort` and the `DirPort` and then call it again
 when the transport proxies are configured?

 Tor should do this, I think.

 > I think that `tor-fw-helper` is supposed to be called repeatedly, so I
 think the second way is better, but I haven't looked into this too deeply
 to be sure.

 Yes, that's correct. The idea was to make tor-fw-helper a thing that exits
 after the job is finished - Tor needs to keep track of when it is called,
 etc.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/4567#comment:2>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online