[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #7666 [Stem]: Support TAKEOWNERSHIP command
#7666: Support TAKEOWNERSHIP command
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: lunar | Owner: atagar
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: normal | Milestone:
Component: Stem | Version:
Keywords: | Parent:
Points: | Actualpoints:
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Comment(by rransom):
Replying to [comment:5 atagar]:
> > Your Controller class's support for the TAKEOWNERSHIP command assumes
that Stem will always be run in the same process-ID namespace
>
> Good point. Changed the TAKEOWNERSHIP call to only take place if the
control socket is for localhost.
>
>
https://gitweb.torproject.org/stem.git/commitdiff/120907822f06fd476f2c47b7135e816cd730b1c7
Ah, so it'll only break if someone uses FreeBSD jails or Linux containers
(see package `lxc`) to put Tor in a different PID namespace on the same
OS, or accesses a remote Tor instance securely using SSH port forwarding
or Tor hidden services with socat or stunnel or ....
I realize that accessing a remote or jailed Tor instance's control port is
not likely to be a common use case, and accidentally sending
`TAKEOWNERSHIP` to one should be a bit rarer than that, but your approach
is unnecessarily fragile and complex, and it is wrong.
What kind of object does `launch_tor` return, and how do callers obtain a
`Controller` object from that one?
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/7666#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