-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 445
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Various hidden services and tunnel related improvements #1510
Conversation
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
tetest this please |
retest this please |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
relay_circuit = self.intro_point_for[message.payload.info_hash] | ||
relay_circuit.tunnel_data(message.candidate.sock_addr, TUNNEL_PREFIX + message.packet) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure if this is a correct change. My understanding was that message.candidate.sock_addr was the ip/port of the exit-socket of the previous tunnel.
Hence, if we backpropagate it to that ip/port, it would automatically be forwarded back to the originator.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also thought that. But when the key-response reached the intro-point (which should relay the response to the downloader over the originating circuit), it did not use the originating circuit but it sends directly to the downloader.
Even more: it meant that the sock_addr of the downloader was known by the seeder? Than the whole hidden services would not make sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm pretty sure this is not true
@rjruigrok have a look at my comments, I'm not sure if the change you made makes sense. |
@NielsZeilemaker Although I'm stubornly defending things 😃 thanks for the comments! |
@rjruigrok Can you elaborate a bit more on the key problem? |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
@synctext to elaborate:
|
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
retest this please |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
retest this please |
4 failures with errors including |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
retest this please |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
@rjruigrok looking good! |
There's been a timeout, but it's on the gui tests and it seems it's not a blocked thread anyway. |
Added peer exchange via the key-response message. Just to get more other peers if one peer is found. |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
retest this please |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
I'm not planning any more work in this PR, so it can be considered ready now. 😃 |
retest this please |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
OK, if this is merged we'll be building V6.5 RC1! |
Various hidden services and tunnel related improvements
Ready if it passes
.. and if @egbertbouman and @NielsZeilemaker agree 😄