[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #3049 [Tor Client]: Allow a Tor process to be âownedâ by a controller process
#3049: Allow a Tor process to be âownedâ by a controller process
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: rransom | Owner: rransom
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: Tor: 0.2.2.x-final
Component: Tor Client | Version:
Keywords: | Parent:
Points: | Actualpoints:
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Comment(by rransom):
Replying to [comment:20 nickm]:
> I still like it. One thing -- is it right for there to be more than one
"owning" controller at a time? The "ownership" metaphor implies
exclusivity, but the TAKEOWNERSHIP command doesn't seem to prevent an
arbitrary number of controllers from having "ownership" at the same time.
I think that's not an unreasonable thing to do, but we sure want to
document it, and document how TAKEOWNERSHIP interacts with
__OwningControllerProcess: Otherwise somebody will get surprised.
I've pushed further explanation of the behaviour of TAKEOWNERSHIP on
multiple control connections and the intended use of these features to my
torspec feature3049 branch, along with two `fixup!` commits to document
these features as âadded in 0.2.2.28-betaâ (since it seems they will be
added in the next release).
> Also, I think we ought to have a way to relinquish ownership, though
that can be another patch.
That does seem proper, even though I have no good use for that in mind.
(I wouldn't want a controller to set TAKEOWNERSHIP if it will want a Tor
process to outlive it.)
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/3049#comment:21>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs