Opened 7 months ago

Closed 6 months ago

#21645 closed task (implemented)

prop140 / compression: Unified directory cache backend

Reported by: nickm Owned by: nickm
Priority: Medium Milestone: Tor: 0.3.1.x-final
Component: Core Tor/Tor Version:
Severity: Normal Keywords: TorCoreTeam201703, prop140, review-group-17
Cc: Actual Points: .5
Parent ID: Points: 3
Reviewer: ahf Sponsor: Sponsor4

Description

With prop140 and/or ahf's compression proposal, we'll need to cache more documents than previously, to include multiple consensuses, diffs, compressed consensuses, etc. We could do this in an ad-hoc way, but we'll probably be better off with a real abstraction here.

Child Tickets

Change History (12)

comment:1 Changed 7 months ago by nickm

Owner: set to nickm
Status: newaccepted

This should also handle lack of disk space. It would be good if we could also use this for a better "bogus document" storage system.

comment:2 Changed 7 months ago by nickm

And here's an issue: our seccomp2 sandbox means that we need to know all the possible filenames in advance. So interesting filenames are out.

comment:3 Changed 7 months ago by nickm

Okay, my branch storagedir has a simple abstraction here. We should think about whether this will serve our interests. One problem here is that we can't have names that describe what's in the files, so we need to make sure we survive without persistent metadata outside the files here.

comment:4 Changed 7 months ago by nickm

Actual Points: .5
Status: acceptedneeds_review

comment:5 Changed 6 months ago by dgoulet

Keywords: prop140 added

comment:6 Changed 6 months ago by nickm

Keywords: review-group-17 added

comment:7 Changed 6 months ago by dgoulet

Reviewer: ahf

comment:9 Changed 6 months ago by ahf

Status: needs_reviewneeds_revision

Minor question on GL - other than that it looks good.

comment:10 Changed 6 months ago by nickm

Status: needs_revisionneeds_review

I've updated the branch to address your comments. How is it now?

comment:11 Changed 6 months ago by ahf

Status: needs_reviewmerge_ready

A minor question there, but that's it - other than that it looks good!

comment:12 Changed 6 months ago by nickm

Resolution: implemented
Status: merge_readyclosed

Answered there; merging this; thanks!

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.