Join GitHub today
Authorities expose bandwidth file used in votes #21
tor-dev thread "Proposal: Expose raw bwauth votes"
@tomrittervg, it looks like we never added your proposal to:
@juga0, please add the proposal in another commit in this branch.
Now the name of this branch doesn't match the new ticket for the spec https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/26694.
The archived file might be written atomically, if cp writes atomically:
But the file that Tor reads is not written atomically:
We are not fixing bugs in torflow. We will never get sbws done if we stop to fix bugs in torflow.
We can't guarantee that authority operators will implement file transfers atomically. Instead, we should remind authority operators not to schedule bandwidth file generation or transfers during voting times:
Ok, that is another way to implement atomic reads and writes. I closed trac ticket #26692.
Does metrics need to download the bandwidth file that matches the vote?
How can they reliably download the bandwidth file that matches the vote, if the bandwidth generator can overwrite the bandwidth file at any time?
Tor must copy the file.
I don't understand what you mean by "while is not done in the same path where the generator puts the file."
Yes. See my answer above about trac ticket #26702.
The first sentence in you patch talks about files and votes with matching headers.
Please work on the current branch and pull request. When the branch is ready to merge, put the branch name on the trac ticket again.
No, only large changes.
Yes, because the proposal has more information than the spec change.
No, please update the proposal to match the spec.
There is a standard format for dir-spec URLs:
We should match this format.
In your dir-spec patch, please modify the "current" section as well:
No, you should update the proposal, get it reviewed, then send it to tor-dev.
Here is a list of the other changes I asked for, so I don't need to search all the comments:
I think i've made all the changes suggested in dir-spec.
Thanks for your changes.
I made some extra changes in my torspec repository, and put them in a different pull request:
You can review there, or push my commits to your branch, and review here.
I added bandwidth.z to the current section.
I made some edits to the proposal, please review.
I made this change.
They don't need to match. Proposals often have extra detail, or leave details to the spec.
No, I solved #26702 with a tor man page update.