-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Is this a problem with the tor lookup/directory protocol? I assume the case here is that the descriptor data assumes full socket access and therefore does not have a data entry specifying the # of sockets that can be used. On one level, this is an internal/localhost issue, but there should be a way to work around this. Chances are, if this guy has a problem, many more may as well. Might one solution be to incorporate this information into the data that clients use to determine how preferential a particular OR is?
It seems like it would be easy to put in some code that says, "If Sockets<X, rating=-10 points" or whatever. This would keep such servers usable, but put down at the bottom of the stack. After all, if you're in the middle of Boratland with crappy state run dial-up, you can't really take advantage of any benefits from a faster/more reliable router anyway, right? :D ~Andrew - --- Frivolous lawsuits. Unlawful government seizures. What's YOUR defense? Protect your assets, keep what you earn, and generate more income at the same time! Visit http://www.mpassetprotection.com/ today. On 02/21/2007 01:09 PM, Mike Perry wrote: > Thus spake Stephan Walter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > >> On 2007-02-21 21:25, Alexander W. Janssen wrote: >>> From a pragmatic point of view that would also mean that you wouldn't >>> be able to log in from remote if TOR gobbles up all sockets. >> It's not as bad as that, as the ssh daemon is listening all the time and >> therefor already has its socket. > > Actually, it probably is as bad as that. Each time accept() is called > on this server socket to handle a new SSH connection a new socket is > formed.. Unless their limit has a special exemption that they coded > themselves for accept().. But most likely its some garbage usermode > Linux thingy with ulimit -n set on the usermode linux process. > > On the plus side, if they did code this exception for accept(), it > should apply to Tor as well, at least for incoming connections to the > OR port. Eventually most routers should connect to you, and Tor will > just use those OR connections (though they may get closed if no > circuits are on them.. not sure about how long Tor keeps idle OR > connections open). > > However, my scanner (if it ever works :) probably will end up flagging > your node as unreliable.. But you've got a while before that actually > means anything. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF3LcTgwZR2XMkZmQRA6ntAKCReIT4kLCQm2Xq0+yRGSf8ReEOfgCeKFuo jhnb010VOV+TOpGqlF7Z99Q= =h3xF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
