[tor-bugs] #17178 [Tor]: Rendezvous Single Onion Services: One-Hop Intro Point and Rendezvous

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#17178: Rendezvous Single Onion Services: One-Hop Intro Point and Rendezvous
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
 Reporter:  teor                                 |          Owner:
     Type:  enhancement                          |         Status:
 Priority:  High                                 |  needs_review
Component:  Tor                                  |      Milestone:  Tor:
 Severity:  Normal                               |  0.2.8.x-final
 Keywords:  028-triaged, tor-hs,                 |        Version:
  TorCoreTeam201602                              |     Resolution:
Parent ID:                                       |  Actual Points:
  Sponsor:  SponsorU                             |         Points:  large
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------

Comment (by asn):

 Replying to [comment:31 teor]:
 > I finished #17625 and #17358, but #17788 is large and I want to do it on
 a separate branch.
 >
 > My branch feature-17178-rsos is ready for review on
 https://github.com/teor2345/tor.git

 Looked at the code some more.

 Please see my branch `feature-17178-rsos` for a unittest on the poisoning
 functionality.

 Also, I feel a bit uneasy about code like this:
 {{{
 +      if (!options->RendezvousSingleOnionServiceNonAnonymousServer) {
 +        service->next_upload_time += crypto_rand_int(2*rendpostperiod);
 +      }
 }}}
 It's a bit like we are treating location-hidden services as a special
 case, whereas we should probably have it be the default case. I don't mind
 the specific snippet above, but maybe we could functionify the RSOS option
 check to also make it a bit nicer (since it's huge and unreadable). Maybe
 we could put it in a function `service_has_no_location_hiding()` (or some
 nicer name please).

 Similarly I don't like:
 {{{
  #ifndef NON_ANONYMOUS_MODE_ENABLED
 -  tor_assert(!(circuit->build_state->onehop_tunnel));
 +  if (!get_options()->RendezvousSingleOnionServiceNonAnonymousServer) {
 +    tor_assert(!(circuit->build_state->onehop_tunnel));
 +  }
  #endif
 }}}
 these asserts used to make the code look terrible, and now they are worse.
 The number of negative clauses in those asserts makes it even more
 confusing. Do you think we could functionify those asserts similar to
 `assert_circuit_ok()`? Also, shouldn't we assert that if we are in RSOS
 mode, '''it is''' a one hop tunnel?

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/17178#comment:33>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online