Hi Nick, Thanks very much for the reply. Follow-ups inline below.
On 02/01/2019 21:00, Nick Mathewson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 6:34 AM Michael Rogers <mich...@briarproject.org> > wrote: >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> Is the guard connection closed when becoming dormant? > > No; it times out independently. That's good news from my point of view, but in that case I think the idea of terminating the pluggable transport process when becoming dormant might need to be reconsidered? >> On 13/12/2018 20:56, Nick Mathewson wrote: >>> DormantTimeoutDisabledByIdleStreams 0|1 >>> If true, then any open client stream (even one not reading or >>> writing) counts as client activity for the purpose of >>> DormantClientTimeout. If false, then only network activity >>> counts. >>> (Default: 1) >> >> When this option's set to 0 and Tor becomes dormant, will it close any >> idle client connections that are still open? > > No. By default, it won't go dormant if there are any idle client > connections. See DormantTimeoutDisabledByIdleStreams for the option > that overrides that behavior. When DormantTimeoutDisabledByIdleStreams is set to 0, what happens to idle client connections when Tor goes dormant? >> Will it close client connections on receiving SIGNAL DORMANT? > > No. > >> If Tor doesn't close client connections when becoming dormant, will it >> become active again (or send an event that the controller can use to >> trigger SIGNAL ACTIVE) if there's activity on an open client stream? > > No, but that might be a good idea if > DormantTimeoutDisabledByIdleStreams is set to 0. Sorry, do you mean it might be a good idea for Tor to become active again/send an event in that case? Should I open a ticket for this if it looks like we'll need it? Cheers, Michael
0x11044FD19FC527CC.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
