[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #4567 [Tor Bridge]: Extend Tor's UPnP support for pluggable transport ports
#4567: Extend Tor's UPnP support for pluggable transport ports
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Reporter: karsten | Owner: asn
Type: project | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Sponsor G: June 30, 2012
Component: Tor Bridge | Version:
Keywords: | Parent:
Points: | Actualpoints:
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Comment(by asn):
Replying to [comment:3 sjmurdoch]:
> Maybe the responsibility for sanity checking should be with Tor, rather
than tor-fw-helper, as Tor has a better idea of what is going on. tor-fw-
helper could be given a list of ports which it then does its best to open
them, before returning a status for each port which was opened. Tor could
then decide whether that was good enough (e.g. did the ORPort forward
succeed), and report back to the user.
Yes, that's what I think too.
Unfortunately, this way, the tor-fw-helper-spec has to change too, so that
it reports back which ports were forwarded and which failed to be
forwarded.
IIUC, tor is not using the `SUCCESS`/`FAILED` stdout strings of tor-fw-
helper at the moment, so changing the spec. is not such a big deal.
If for some reason changing the spec _is_ a huge deal, we can keep the
`SUCCESS`/`FAILED` signals of tor-fw-helper, by passing it two lists of
addrports. One list which MUST be forwarded, and another list which SHOULD
be forwarded. If any addrports in the first list failed to get forwarded,
tor-fw-helper returns `FAILED`, otherwise it returns `SUCCESS`.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/4567#comment:4>
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