Subject: Re: bug#24212: please add SOCKS support and enforced TCP to enable DNS resolution through Tor

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:47:16 +0100

Werner Koch writes ("Re: bug#24212: please add SOCKS support and enforced TCP to enable DNS resolution through Tor"):
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 23:14, [email-masked] said:
> > I have some concerns about the patch series, though.  Will you be at
> 
> Still?  I revised it back then according to your requests.

After a conversation with Daniel, I now intend to make some changes
myself, based loosely on 59371e4c138fa9fde27352d4d35e3f321d41d4e4
(in gnupg/upstream-for-work).

Changes I intend to make are:

 * In the configuration and initialisation code, replace the Tor
   specific configuration knowledge with a resolv.conf option to use
   any SOCKS server, called something like `socks_server' or
   `adns_socks_server'.  The value would be an IPv4/IPV6 literal, plus
   port number; or, alternatively, a pathname (for use with AF_UNIX,
   SOCK_STREAM).

   My understanding is that whatever in Tor is using adns generates
   its own private resolv.conf anyway; and there is no need for
   general adns clients to be able to specify, as such, use of Tor.

   (If /all/ adns clients on a host should use the Tor server via
   SOCKS, then putting the socks configuration in the host-wide
   resolv.conf would be appropriate.)

   Does that make sense ?

 * Drop the whitespace patch.  Instead, include a patch to
   .gitattributes to suppress git's moaning.

I don't have an easy way to test this code.  If I send you a reference
to a git branch, would you be able to test it for me ?

Thanks,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.