[tor-bugs] #16943 [Tor]: Implement prop250 (Random Number Generation During Tor Voting)

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#16943: Implement prop250 (Random Number Generation During Tor Voting)
----------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  asn       |          Owner:
     Type:  defect    |         Status:  new
 Priority:  Medium    |      Milestone:  Tor: 0.2.8.x-final
Component:  Tor       |        Version:
 Severity:  Blocker   |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  tor-hs    |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:  #8244     |         Points:  large
  Sponsor:  SponsorR  |
----------------------+------------------------------------

Comment (by dgoulet):

 Replying to [comment:16 asn]:
 > Great! Please also check my `prop250_v4` branch. Based on yours with a
 few mods.
 >
 > Specifically:
 >
 > - Some small code tweaks and variable/function renames.
 >

 Commit: d653f8cc17d6e278e16acb8a3101a821f9f42f6e

 {{{
 - Macroify previous/current SRV strings.
 }}}

 Not sure I agree with that. I much prefer typed variable here instead of
 macros for strings that we only use locally in this file. We have compiler
 protection with that where macros is pretty yolo in terms of warnings for
 compiler. You see a win for macros?

 >
 > More future things:
 >
 > - We should start actually voting the `NumSRVAgreements` parameter. And
 maybe for the real network the default value should be `((n_auths / 2) +
 1)`, instead of `n_auths` that is now.

 So you mean before merging 250, we should make an adhoc patch right now?
 Most dirauth won't upgrade until a stable and since we plan to have this
 in 028-stable, we can make this a big block.

 Hrm, consensus params are options in a file for dirauth so we have to
 decide on a "hard" number which in this case would be 5. And we can see
 how the SR behaves over time and increase it if needed?

 >
 > - Also, I've been getting these interesting log messages for a while
 now:
 > {{{
 > [SR] You may not provide a value for virtual option
 'SharedRandCurrentValue'
 > }}}
 >   but I'm not sure what they mean. I think they started appearing when
 we switched from `LINELIST_S` to `LINELIST_V` for SRVs.

 Yeah I have yet understantd this one but I think that when the state file
 is read that option can be missing and thus we have this warning...

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/16943#comment:17>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online