16:59:30 <ahf> #startmeeting network team meeting, 6th of december 2021
16:59:30 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Dec  6 16:59:30 2021 UTC.  The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:59:30 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:59:36 <ahf> hello hello
16:59:52 <ahf> https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2021.1-keep is our pad
17:00:06 <ahf> i have snapshotted all content from november to another pad now
17:00:07 <nickm> hihi
17:00:11 <ahf> hi o/
17:00:43 <jnewsome> o/
17:01:15 <ahf> how are people doing with their boards: https://gitlab.torproject.org/groups/tpo/core/-/boards
17:01:29 <ahf> dgoulet, mikeperry, eta: y'all here?
17:01:35 <dgoulet> yes
17:02:11 <eta> yep
17:02:32 <ahf> are people doing OK with their boards?
17:02:40 <nickm> My board is accumulating, but I think it's under control
17:02:53 * eta thinks hers is ok
17:03:19 <ahf> i think mine is in a weird state where things keeps coming from the side that is not on the board. hm
17:03:28 <ahf> will need to think about that
17:03:29 <ahf> ok
17:04:18 <ahf> dgoulet: we have our release status. i guess one of the things we need to dive into this week is to follow up on the suggestion from the s61 meeting to roll a pre-cc alpha, but we should talk about this week?
17:04:32 <dgoulet> very much so
17:05:33 <ahf> ya, i don't think there is that much more to add now. we can talk over the week and let the team know what we do
17:06:05 <ahf> our current set of backport tickets are https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name[]=Backport
17:06:20 <ahf> we can ignore that entirely i think here
17:06:25 <ahf> since we will only roll alpha
17:07:33 <ahf> no updates on any team tickets, but also nothing urgent
17:08:01 <mikeperry> if there is a possible tweak to DNS overload, that might be worth considering for alpha since geko said exits are sad about it
17:08:08 <ahf> i *think* our set of triage-bot assigned tickets are right: https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/merge_requests?scope=all&state=opened&reviewer_username=triage-bot
17:08:23 <ahf> mikeperry: yeah, i think that is one of the things david and i need to talk about, which is probably going to be tomorrow
17:08:35 <ahf> i am not entirely sure we can make a fix in for that before tho, but we shoul think about it
17:09:41 <ahf> i don't see anything from other teams other than i know we have the dns issue from NHT that david and i need to be on
17:10:12 <ahf> ok!
17:10:32 <ahf> i see no discussion items for this meeting, but some for the thursday meeting
17:10:38 <ahf> anything we need to talk about today?
17:10:50 <ahf> these meetings are getting very much like a checklist
17:11:05 <nickm> I see two items on the discussion list... oh, darn
17:11:09 <nickm> I put my thing on the wrong list
17:11:11 <nickm> hang on
17:11:12 <ahf> "is the airplane engine on fire"
17:11:14 <ahf> ok!
17:11:36 <ahf> [2021-12-06] [nickm] OSS-Fuzz issue for tor#40472 (https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/issues/40472) will go public soon. Should we care?
17:11:41 <nickm> basically, a while back OSS-fuzz told us about a timeout issue that seems like a false positive, though it does reflect a sad thing in the code.
17:12:04 <nickm> Their automated system is about to go public with it, so I'm confirming that we think it's no big deal
17:13:14 <ahf> i'm reading it
17:13:18 <nickm> Or OTOH, I could write a quick patch for this one case, though auditing _all_ the cases where we split with no bound would take longer
17:14:21 <ahf> hm, yeah, i wasn't too worried on that one when i grep'e for the 0-case for the split
17:14:34 <ahf> i was thinking there would be easier ways to get us to allocate memory
17:14:59 <ahf> what would you patch here?
17:15:11 <nickm> I'd change the one case that the OSS-fuzz warning was about
17:15:24 <nickm> to limit the amount of splitting it is willing to consider
17:15:33 <jnewsome> could we add a hacky upper bound everywhere, rather than trying to find the "exact" right limit at every call site?
17:15:36 <jnewsome> e.g. 100?
17:15:52 <ahf> isn't it used to tokenize relays?
17:15:57 <nickm> nope.
17:16:06 <ahf> ok, that is good
17:16:15 <nickm> ahf: I mean, not for _every_ token.
17:16:20 <nickm> There may be specific tokens that use it
17:16:22 <ahf> yeah
17:16:37 <nickm> jnewsome: That gives me a bad feeling, though I'm not really sure why. I'm worried it would mess something else up in a hard-to-understand way
17:17:09 <ahf> i'm a bit undecided here i guess. i think there is value in fixing things just to make something like a CI go green, but then maybe keep the ticket open for afterwards?
17:17:15 <jnewsome> nickm: yeah, would probably still need a human to look at all the call sites
17:17:56 <jnewsome> if only briefly to double check it's the right order of magnitude upper bound
17:19:12 <ahf> ya
17:19:46 <ahf> nickm: wanna do the small patch and then let the ticket stay open?
17:20:01 <nickm> ok, will do.
17:20:04 <nickm> thanks!
17:20:11 <ahf> ok, awesome
17:20:16 <ahf> anything else we need to chat about?
17:20:28 <ahf> i'll do our team status today for november and let y'all review it
17:21:26 <ahf> ok!
17:21:31 <ahf> let's call the meeting then
17:21:33 <ahf> thanks all o/
17:21:36 <ahf> #endmeeting