Activity
Trac:
Parent Ticket: #28018 (moved)Trac:
Parent: N/A to #28018 (moved)#29341 (moved) is a duplicate.
I added tbb-needs to this ticket (which I included on #29341 (moved) when I filed it).
Trac:
Keywords: N/A deleted, tbb-needs addedReplying to mcs:
I added tbb-needs to this ticket (which I included on #29341 (moved) when I filed it). Sorry for dropping the tag. Do you need this to be in 0.4.0? It might be easier to put in 0.4.1 because we can use the pubsub framework. It might be possible to put it in 0.4.0 but it might take longer, and might be too big a change at this stage of the release.
Replying to catalyst:
Replying to mcs:
I added tbb-needs to this ticket (which I included on #29341 (moved) when I filed it). Sorry for dropping the tag. Do you need this to be in 0.4.0? It might be easier to put in 0.4.1 because we can use the pubsub framework. It might be possible to put it in 0.4.0 but it might take longer, and might be too big a change at this stage of the release.
I added Georg to the Cc list on this ticket.
I looked at the Core Tor release dates on the following page: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTorReleases
The misleading bootstrap messages are confusing, but I think that is acceptable in a Tor Browser alpha. However, this seems like a bug we would not want to have in a stable release (at least not for a long period of time).
Georg can comment more accurately than I can, but we might ship tor 0.4.0 with Tor Browser 8.5 since the browser release date will be very close to the 0.4.0 stable date. That means that our users will have to live with this bug for 4 months or longer. Maybe that is okay because experts who are called upon to help troubleshoot bootstrap problems can be told about this bug, and most users probably do not use a local proxy (in which case one can assume that "proxy" must mean "pluggable transport"). As far as I know, we don't have any hard data about local proxy use though.
Trac:
Cc: brade, mcs to brade, mcs, gk
Replying to mcs:
Replying to catalyst:
Replying to mcs:
I added tbb-needs to this ticket (which I included on #29341 (moved) when I filed it). Sorry for dropping the tag. Do you need this to be in 0.4.0? It might be easier to put in 0.4.1 because we can use the pubsub framework. It might be possible to put it in 0.4.0 but it might take longer, and might be too big a change at this stage of the release.
I added Georg to the Cc list on this ticket.
I looked at the Core Tor release dates on the following page: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTorReleases
The misleading bootstrap messages are confusing, but I think that is acceptable in a Tor Browser alpha. However, this seems like a bug we would not want to have in a stable release (at least not for a long period of time).
I agree.
Georg can comment more accurately than I can, but we might ship tor 0.4.0 with Tor Browser 8.5 since the browser release date will be very close to the 0.4.0 stable date. That means that our users will have to live with this bug for 4 months or longer. Maybe that is okay because experts who are called upon to help troubleshoot bootstrap problems can be told about this bug, and most users probably do not use a local proxy (in which case one can assume that "proxy" must mean "pluggable transport"). As far as I know, we don't have any hard data about local proxy use though.
While 0.4.x probably won't make it into Tor Browser 8.5 it's very likely that one of the point releases could pick up 0.4.x. So, yes, this is unfortunate. I am inclined to agree that this bug is not a hard blocker for you for 0.4.0, though. If we feel strongly at some point we can just stay on 0.3.5.x at least until the bug is fixed in a later stable release.
WIP branch at https://github.com/tlyu/tor/tree/bug28925 , needs a bit of cleanup and some documentation.
Not the greatest strategy (adds more state into
or_connection_t), but not too horrible either.Manually tested with built-in PT bridges on TB 8.5a8; haven't yet tested non-PT proxies.
Pull request at https://github.com/torproject/tor/pull/827
I believe this merges cleanly to master, but it pushes a couple of files over their line count exceptions in practracker. I'm not sure how we want to handle that.
Trac:
Status: assigned to needs_review
