Re: [Tails-dev] bridge mode vs. clock way off [Was: Please r…

Delete this message

Reply to this message
Author: anonym
Date:  
To: The Tails public development discussion list
Subject: Re: [Tails-dev] bridge mode vs. clock way off [Was: Please review and merge bugfix/bridge_mode_vs_tor_restarts]
First a correction to myself: the strings we grep for have severity warn
when not using a bridge.

20/11/12 14:14, intrigeri wrote:
> anonym wrote (20 Nov 2012 12:15:44 GMT) :
>> 1. A very easy and very sub-optimal solution would be to have Tor log
>>    at the "info" level by default.

>
> Would be acceptable, IMHO, as a short-term workaround,
> iff. the resulting log files don't increase memory usage too much.


Log severity info is really verbose. I ran a test for 20 minutes with
some rather heavy Tor usage, and the log grew something like
100KB/minute. That's too much, IMHO. However, we can save this approach
like this:

1. We patch torrc at build time to have "Log info ...", as proposed.
2. But once tordate finishes we edit torrc and downgrade to notice
level debugging, and send a SIGHUP to Tor.

Ugly, ugly, ugly workarounds, all the time! :) What do you think?

>> 3. What about patching Tor to eliminate the log severity
>>    inconsistency? But perhaps they have good reasons for this being
>>    the way it is so it wouldn't get upstreamed?

>
> I think it's worth asking them if there's a good reason for the
> apparent inconsistency.


On second thought, if we're gonna look towards upstream, I'd rather we
spend our energy on a proper fix, not a fix that make our current
workaround work... urgh.

Cheers!