Re: [tor-dev] Connection, Channel and Scheduler - An Intense Trek

[Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:56 AM, David Goulet <dgoulet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 15 Nov (13:49:54), Nick Mathewson wrote:

 [...]
>
> > On the other hand, this doesn't mean that the FIFO structure we have today
> > is a good idea at all.  It probably makes sense to use the same priority
> > queue-based scheduler thing that we use everywhere else, but possibly with
> > a different (inverted??) priority parameter for destroyed circuits.
>
> (We kind of need the FIFO concept for cells afaict because of the parent
> relationship between cells with their digest (à la git). And that is of course
> per circuit.)
>

Are you sure?  DESTROY cells aren't relay cells; they don't have relay
crypto done to them, and I think it's okay to re-order them with
respect to other cells.  I don't think they have a digest on them, do
they?

peace,
-- 
Nick
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev