Re: [tor-bugs] #9969 [Tor]: We launch 50 microdesc requests, spread out over just three guards?

["Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki" <blackhole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

#9969: We launch 50 microdesc requests, spread out over just three guards?
------------------------+--------------------------------
     Reporter:  arma    |      Owner:
         Type:  defect  |     Status:  needs_revision
     Priority:  major   |  Milestone:  Tor: 0.2.5.x-final
    Component:  Tor     |    Version:
   Resolution:          |   Keywords:  tor-client
Actual Points:          |  Parent ID:
       Points:          |
------------------------+--------------------------------

Comment (by arlolra):

 Replying to [comment:7 nickm]:
 > In dir_fetch_type:
 >   * I don't like those complicated conditional expressions.  In
 particular, every time I see something like the following, I need to go
 look at a table of operator precedence.  I think that in this case it is
 wrong: bitwise OR binds more tightly than ?, so the result of the
 conditional will always be "MICRODESC_DIRINFO"... but the problem here is
 probably that conditional expressions are Just Too Error-Prone.
 > {{{
 >       return V3_DIRINFO |
 >                    (resource && !strcmp(resource,"microdesc") ?
 MICRODESC_DIRINFO :
 >
 NO_DIRINFO);
 > }}}

 Ummm, no, the parentheses guard against the situation you described. But I
 wholeheartedly agree that if you had to think about it, it's already too
 complicated.

 >
 > In initiate_descriptor_downloads:
 >   * Changing from 8 to 4 seems wrong; you've left off the space for the
 terminating NUL character.

 I only counted 4 characters. "d/" + ".z"
 The NULL terminator is accounted for when you backtrack to remove the last
 separator, so is included in the +1 * n.
 `memcpy(cp-1, ".z", 3);`

 >   * Why is the minimum ''higher'' now?  We want to be launching fewer
 requests.  Two per guard still seems like a high minimum.  This feels more
 like a maximum than a minimum

 Hmm, I thought that's what we had agreed on but I admit to being very
 tired during that talk.

 Thanks for reviewing. I'll take your questions back to the drawing board.

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/9969#comment:8>
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