[tor-dev] Connection, Channel and Scheduler - An Intense Trek

Nick Mathewson nickm at alum.mit.edu
Thu Nov 16 14:06:03 UTC 2017

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:56 AM, David Goulet <dgoulet at torproject.org> wrote:
> On 15 Nov (13:49:54), Nick Mathewson wrote:

> > On the other hand, this doesn't mean that the FIFO structure we have today
> > is a good idea at all.  It probably makes sense to use the same priority
> > queue-based scheduler thing that we use everywhere else, but possibly with
> > a different (inverted??) priority parameter for destroyed circuits.
> (We kind of need the FIFO concept for cells afaict because of the parent
> relationship between cells with their digest (à la git). And that is of course
> per circuit.)

Are you sure?  DESTROY cells aren't relay cells; they don't have relay
crypto done to them, and I think it's okay to re-order them with
respect to other cells.  I don't think they have a digest on them, do


More information about the tor-dev mailing list