Problems with irc because of tor?
Scott Bennett
bennett at cs.niu.edu
Fri Nov 21 10:41:23 UTC 2008
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:53:42 -0500 Praedor Atrebates <praedor at yahoo.com>
wrote:
>I am running Mandriva linux 2009.0. I have been using tork (as a tor manager)
>and tor for several years with a bunch of problems only occurring since going
>to 2009.0 AND upgrading to tor 0.2.1.7-alpha. Before this, I ran tor and tork
>AND access IRC (via Konversation in KDE) without problems.
>
>I've checked processes when tor appears to die and it really is dead. I check
>the debug log and there is literally nothing there to indicate any problems
>whatsoever, just a message that tor died:
>
>Nov 20 16:21:54.219 [info] command_process_netinfo_cell(): Got good NETINFO
>cell from [scrubbed]; OR connection is now open, using protocol version 2
>Nov 20 16:21:54.219 [debug] connection_or_process_cells_from_inbuf(): 59:
>starting, inbuf_datalen 0 (0 pending in tls object).
>Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] conn_read_callback(): socket 59 wants to read.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] connection_read_to_buf(): 59: starting,
>inbuf_datalen 0 (0 pending in tls object). at_most 12288.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] connection_read_to_buf(): After TLS read of 512:
>586 read, 0 written
>Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] connection_or_process_cells_from_inbuf(): 59:
>starting, inbuf_datalen 512 (0 pending in tls object).
>Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] command_process_create_cell(): success: handed off
>onionskin.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] connection_or_process_cells_from_inbuf(): 59:
>starting, inbuf_datalen 0 (0 pending in tls object).
>Nov 20 16:21:54.377 [debug] conn_write_callback(): socket 5 wants to write.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] cpuworker_main(): onion_skin_server_handshake
>succeeded.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] conn_read_callback(): socket 5 wants to read.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] read_to_chunk(): Read 231 bytes. 231 on inbuf.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] onionskin_answer(): init digest forward
>0xb2ff98cd, backward 0xb12cc861.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] append_cell_to_circuit_queue(): Made a circuit
>active.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] append_cell_to_circuit_queue(): Primed a buffer.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] connection_or_flush_from_first_active_circuit():
>Made a circuit inactive.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] onionskin_answer(): Finished sending 'created'
>cell.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] connection_cpu_process_inbuf(): onionskin_answer
>succeeded. Yay.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] conn_write_callback(): socket 59 wants to write.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] flush_chunk_tls(): flushed 512 bytes, 0 ready to
>flush, 0 remain.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] connection_handle_write(): After TLS write of 512:
>0 read, 586 written
>Nov 20 16:21:54.404 [debug] cpuworker_main(): finished writing response.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.610 [notice] Catching signal TERM, exiting cleanly.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So what sent tor a SIGTERM? Given receipt of a SIGTERM, what follows
appears to be normal enough.
The question occurs to me whether if tor detects another tor process
running under the same user id, will it issue a SIGTERM itself either to the
other process or to itself to prevent conflicts (e.g., two tors bound to the
same ORPort, DirPort, etc.)?
>Nov 20 16:21:54.611 [info] or_state_save(): Saved state to
>"/home/praedor/.tor/state"
>Nov 20 16:21:54.717 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 8.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.717 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 15.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.717 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 24.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.717 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 25.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.717 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 5.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.717 [info] cpuworker_main(): CPU worker exiting because Tor
>process closed connection (either rotated keys or died).
>Nov 20 16:21:54.718 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 43.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.719 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 50.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.719 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 45.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.719 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 44.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.719 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 47.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.720 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 46.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.720 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 48.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.720 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 49.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.720 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 51.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.720 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 52.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 61.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [info] _connection_free(): Freeing linked Directory
>connection [client reading] with 0 bytes on inbuf, 0 on outbuf.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [info] _connection_free(): Freeing linked Socks connection
>[open] with 0 bytes on inbuf, 0 on outbuf.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 53.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 56.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 54.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.721 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 55.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.722 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 57.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.722 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 58.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.723 [debug] _connection_free(): closing fd 59.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.723 [info] buf_shrink_freelists(): Cleaning freelist for 4096-
>byte chunks: keeping 0, dropping 18.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.723 [info] buf_shrink_freelists(): Cleaning freelist for 8192-
>byte chunks: keeping 0, dropping 61.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.724 [info] buf_shrink_freelists(): Cleaning freelist for
>16384-byte chunks: keeping 0, dropping 2.
>Nov 20 16:21:54.724 [info] buf_shrink_freelists(): Cleaning freelist for
>32768-byte chunks: keeping 0, dropping 1.
>
>I have now uninstalled (again) tor-0.2.1.7-alpha and installed the 2009.0
>package for tor instead, tor-0.2.0.31, and it is (and has been) working
>without hitch since I started it. There appears to be something about 0.2.1.7
>specifically that causes problems. Prior to upgrading to it I was running
>tor-0.2.1.6, also without problem.
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army." *
* -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 *
**********************************************************************
More information about the tor-talk
mailing list