On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:48:21 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Roger Dingledine <arma@xxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:24:47PM +0100, Noel David Torres TaÃo > > wrote: > >> What would happen if a Tor node changes behaviour and uses four or > >> five relay steps instead of three? > > At around DEFAULT_ROUTE_LEN 8 or above I get a lot of these, with > EXTEND being shown in various command locations, and no connectivity > to hidden services. Lower values or 4 or 5 probably work just fine > but I didn't bother testing more than a couple clearnet and onion > circuits since it's not yet a controller/config tunable and thus takes > edit/compile/run time. So even my test of 9 > 5 > 7 > 8 take with > salt. Don't know if this likely represent a bug to test more, or just > timeouts... the circuits that did work setup in times not feeling > much more than time/3*LEN. I'd suggest an undocumented tunable and > unit test if it's worth research/statistic/function_checking purpose. > > > relay_send_command_from_edge_(): Bug: Uh-oh. We're sending a > RELAY_COMMAND_EXTEND cell, but we have run out of RELAY_EARLY cells on > that circuit. Commands sent before: > (unrecognized),(unrecognized),(unrecognized),(unrecognized),EXTEND,EXTEND,(unrecognized) This is working exactly as specified, and despite the error message, is not a Bug. The number of hops each circuit can extend to is limited by the number of RELAY_EARLY cells allowed per circuit (8), as EXTENDs that are not contained in RELAY_EARLY are dropped. Roger linked prop 110, but this is also documented in the tor-spec (section 5.6). Regards, -- Yawning Angel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev