Hi Caitlin, > On 1 Apr 2020, at 18:58, c <c@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:22:21 +1000 > teor <teor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Check for onion service descriptor uploads: >> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/33609 >> >> Someone else is working on the microdescriptor changes at the moment. >> >> Would you like to start working on the onion service descriptor changes? > > Sure, it would give me an opportunity to learn about onion descriptors > in more detail. I will get started on it. > > But first, looking at it more, I think my struggle with understanding > what to do stems from my unfamiliarity with the Chutney codebase (first > I have heard of the tool was with this project, even though commits > date back to 2011). Chutney is a custom tool that we use to integration test tor networks. > I need to make sure I understand #33609 > sufficiently: > > - Is the requested functionality only for Chutney or will Tor > potentially need any changes to allow for HS verification? The required messages are already in tor's onion service logs, so I don't think that tor will need any changes. I tried to describe the changes in detail on the ticket: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/33609#comment:5 Please let me know if you have any further questions. We're talking in a lot of detail now, so let's continue on the ticket. That way, any reviewers can also see the conversation. > - So I know where to begin looking in the codebase, the ticket wants us > to "check each onion service log" -- is this referring to Tor log > output (such as the instances chutney spawns), chutney-specific logs, > or something else entirely? The info-level log output of the tor instances that chutney spawns. > - For "check v2 and v3 onion services" -- check if they've propagated > the network? Check if v2 and v3 onion services have uploaded their descriptors. > - For "call it an extra 200% 'bootstrap' stage" -- again is this > chutney-specific? I only know bootstrapping percentage from Tor > notice-level logging and obviously it only goes up to 100%, so I'm > wondering if "200%" is a magic number here or something arbitrary. It's an arbitrary number, greater than 100%, so we can integrate it with the existing bootstrap checks. (But that might not be necessary.) > From this and the parent #33050 it doesn't seem to me like the request > is very clear. You're right, the ticket contains my rough notes and hints. I didn't know what level of detail people would need. > I am reading proposals 311-313 after sending this > message so maybe I can come across some answers to my > questions/confusions via the proposals themselves. The proposals will > probably give me a better idea of the work I am in for overall, too, > and perhaps I should have come across them sooner. The proposals might help, but they are mainly focused on tor changes, not chutney changes. > I figure it is wise > regardless to ask for clarification here and read while I wait for > feedback. Efficiency and all :) Please feel free to ask further questions on this list. But let's try to have detailed discussions on the relevant tickets, so reviewers can see the conversation. Thanks! T
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev