On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <ja...@appelbaum.net> wrote: > Hi Scott, > > It is nice to see you posting again, I had wondered where you had gone. > > Scott Bennett: >> I know this really belongs on tor-talk, but I haven't been subscribed >> to it for a long time now. Sorry if posting this here bothers anyone. > > > Seems like a fine place to discuss relay problems, which is what it > sounds like, no?
Maaybe! The very best place would be the bugtracker, of course. (I do seem to recall that you have some issues with trac -- I'm just mentioning the bugtracker so that other people don't get the idea that the mailing lists are the best place for bug reports. But a bug report on the mailing list is much much better than no bug report at all.) >> Back in early July, I upgraded from 0.2.3.13-alpha to 0.2.3.18-rc. >> I immediately ran into problems with a python script that honors the >> http_proxy environment variable, which I normally have set to the localhost >> port for privoxy, which, in turn, connects to tor's SOCKS port. I couldn't >> really see what was going wrong, but using arm to ask for a new identity >> seemed to help sometimes to get a circuit that worked. Sending tor a >> SIGHUP instead also seemed to work about as often. > > If you use 0.2.2.x - what happens? I'm not sure what the bug described here is, fwiw. What is the behavior for the circuits that don't work, and to what extent is 0.2.2.x better? >> A bit over a week ago, I switched to 0.2.3.20-rc, and the problem >> still occurs. However, 0.2.3.20-rc now also emits a new message from time >> to time, the most recent occurrence of which is >> >> Sep 06 06:02:45.934 [notice] Low circuit success rate 7/21 for guard >> TORy0=753E0B5922E34BF98F0D21CC08EA7D1ADEEE2F6B. >> > > That is an interesting message - I wonder if the author of that message > might chime in? Looks like bug #6475. >> Wondering whether such circuit-building failures might be related to the >> other problem, I began a little experiment: each time I saw a "Low circuit >> success rate" message, I added the key fingerprint of the node in question >> to my ExcludeNodes list in torrc and sent tor a SIGHUP. >> The problem is still occurring, though, and when I look at the >> circuits involved, they all seem to have at least one of the excluded >> nodes in them, usually in the entry position. So my question is, what >> changed between 0.2.3.13-alpha and 0.2.3.18-rc (or possibly 0.2.3.20-rc) >> in the handling of nodes listed in the ExcludeNodes line in torrc? And >> is there anything I can do to get the ExcludeNodes list to work again >> the way it used to work? >> Thanks in advance for any relevant information. >> > > It seems that there are two issues - one is that a guard is failing to > build circuits, the other is that you can't seem to exclude them. I have > to admit, I'm more interested in the former... Is there a pattern to the > failures? That is for the 7 successes for that node, did you see > anything interesting? Were say, the nodes that worked somehow in the > same country as that guard? Or perhaps were the other failed circuits > all seemingly unrelated to the guard? > > As far as the ExcludeNodes - did you set StrictNodes at the same time? > Are you also a relay? Any other configuration info would be helpful here too. (To answer your question: looking through the changelogs, and the commit logs for src/or/circuitbuild.c and src/or/routerlist.c, I can't find anything that stands out to me as something that might cause an ExcludeNodes regression. So more investigation will be needed!) -- Nick _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
