[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #13125 [Tor]: Review the guardiness python script of #9321
#13125: Review the guardiness python script of #9321
------------------------+--------------------------------
Reporter: asn | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: normal | Milestone: Tor: 0.2.7.x-final
Component: Tor | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords: tor-guard tor-auth
Actual Points: | Parent ID: #9321
Points: |
------------------------+--------------------------------
Comment (by NickHopper):
=== consensus.py: ===
line 17: Are we sure all dirauths will run the parser at the same time
offset? If some dirauths run just before the hour and some just after the
hour there could be off-by-one differences even if the dirauths all have
essentially the same view of the history.
line 34: probably best to use stem.Flag.GUARD instead of 'Guard'
line 56: I think your schema should do this, since you require the
consensus dates to be unique
=== guards_ds.py ===
write_output_file:
I think what you're trying to do here, by appending everything to f_str
before writing is like an atomic write? But I think file.write() could
still fail, and in the meantime you've truncated the output file by
opening it w+. If you want to do an atomic replacement, you need to do a
two-phase commit, e.g. write to a tempfile and then rename it after the
write is complete.
=== guard_fraction.py: ===
lines 92-94: same comment as consensus.py; it would seem prudent to round
to the nearest hour so that we don't get off-by-one errors with different
dirauths having a database that is off by one consensus.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13125#comment:6>
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