[feat] Enforcing forward travel #4069
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jstuczyn
force-pushed
the
feature/forward-travel
branch
from
ab1e7bf to
4d52c32
Compare
octol
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
|
|
||
| // \/ ADDED | ||
| // enforce forward travel, et al. | ||
| ..Default::default() // /\ ADDED |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm ... can we get away with this? is all that conversion code in my PR not needed?
octol
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
| // However, in that case we wouldn't be able to return an error message to the client | ||
| if !self.inner.allowed_egress.is_allowed(next_hop.ip()) { | ||
| // TODO: perhaps this should get lowered in severity? | ||
| warn!("received an packet that was meant to get forwarded to {next_hop}, but this address does not belong to any node on the next layer - dropping the packet"); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah I'm leaning towards info
jstuczyn
force-pushed
the
feature/forward-travel
branch
from
4d52c32 to
a772314
Compare
jstuczyn
force-pushed
the
feature/forward-travel
branch
from
a772314 to
0b9a897
Compare
jstuczyn
force-pushed
the
feature/forward-travel
branch
from
0b9a897 to
c21b015
Compare
octol
approved these changes
Jan 19, 2024
| StorageError(#[from] StorageError), | ||
|
|
||
| #[error("Provided bandwidth IV is malformed - {0}")] | ||
| #[error("Provided bandwidth IV is malformed: {0}")] |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since you're touching all strings, change to lowercase for first letter :)
| Ok((socket, remote_addr)) => { | ||
| if !self.allowed_ingress.is_allowed(remote_addr.ip()) { | ||
| // TODO: perhaps this should get lowered in severity? | ||
| warn!("received an incoming connection from {remote_addr}, but this address does not belong to any node on the previous layer - dropping the connection"); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah I think let's use INFO, since nothing is going wrong from the operators perspective. I'd imagine most operators run their nodes with RUST_LOG=warn and are only interested in stuff they need to be aware of
Contributor
|
Replaced by #4360 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
NC-112
This pull request introduces a currently optional feature for mixnodes and gateways for enforcing forward travel of mix packets. What it means is that, when enabled, nodes will refuse to accept connections from nodes that are not on the previous layer. Similarly, they will not forward any packets to nodes that are not on the next layer.
One question is whether we should perhaps enable it already by default or leave it optional and keep it in our back pocket for later.
Note that this is a naive implementation with bunch of limitations, but it's imo a good starting point.