Re: [Tails-dev] Persistent torrc [Was: Tails Server: updated…

Borrar esta mensaxe

Responder a esta mensaxe
Autor: anonym
Data:  
Para: The Tails public development discussion list
Asunto: Re: [Tails-dev] Persistent torrc [Was: Tails Server: updated plan and GSoC!]
segfault:
> anonym:
>> segfault:
>>> anonym:
>>>> segfault:
>> [...]
>>>>> I wrote some code to make single files persistent by creating a new
>>>>> directory in TailsData_unlocked, moving the file into it and adding the
>>>>> directory to the persistence.conf with type "link". I think this a
>>>>> pretty ugly solution.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds ugly, indeed.
>>>
>>> Right. Do you have any other idea to solve this problem of making single
>>> files persistent?
>>
>> Yes, to implement the support for this properly in the persistence
>> back-end, in live-boot (which I believe mostly amounts to removing some
>> `[ -d ... ]` checks). I believe I've offered before to do that if
>> needed, otherwise, here's my explicit offer. :)
>
> Wow, that would be great. We talked about this feature before and we
> agreed that it would be great if we had this, but I don't think you
> offered to do this yourself :)


I now remember that I offered it to intrigeri, for another purpose.

> Actually, I took a look at the
> persistence backend to figure out what would be needed to get this done,
> but I was deterred by the vast amount of perl code :D


Yes, I remember that, but you were not looking at the right place if you
found perl code. You probably looked at the frontend, e.g.
tails-persistence-setup, which is a GUI for creating the persistence
partition, and editing persistence.conf.

If you are curious, the backend is written in even worse shell script,
and lives in `/lib/live/boot/9990-misc-helpers.sh` (installed by the
live-boot package).

>> However, if possible, let's try an approach that doesn't rely on this,
>> ok? But I still guess you'd like to have this for the persistent
>> configuration/date for services (i.e. the non-Tails Server bits, e.g.
>> mumble-server's database and similar) as we've discussed before?
>
> ACK. I agree that the other options are better than making the torrc
> persistent. But I still need to make single configuration files
> persistent (e.g. /etc/mumble-server.ini).


Ok, I created #11533 [0] to track this and pushed a branch with a first
attempt at patching live-boot. I haven't tested it, so please do! If it
doesn't work, perhaps the patch gives you enough context to fix it
yourself (it should be confined to `activate_custom_mounts()`)? :) But
please don't waste time on it -- this code is my own baby Frankenstein.

[0] https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/11533

>> [...]
>>>> # torrc.d hack
>>>>
>>>> We have a wrapper that we *always* use to (re)start to, namely
>>>> restart-tor [0]. We could simply add logic to it so that before starting
>>>> tor, for each $line of all files in /etc/tor/torrc.d/*.conf, check if
>>>> $line is already present in /etc/tor/torcc, and if not, append $line.
>>>> It's not as refined as the upstream feature will be, but it'll serve our
>>>> purposes for now, so I think it is good enough.
>>>>
>>>> [0] config/chroot_local-includes/usr/local/sbin/restart-tor
>>>
>>> This way we would have to call restart-tor to add / remove a hidden
>>> service, right? So this would actually restart Tor, but right now I use
>>> "systemctl reload tor@default", which does not restart tor but still
>>> adds / removes hidden services. I think reloading provides better UX,
>>> because restarting Tor closes all circuits.
>>
>> You're right! The easy solution would be to extract that part into a
>> reload-tor, which we'd call instead. Of course, restart-tor would also
>> call it, to get what I described above.
>
> That would work, but I prefer the other options :)


Great, then we agree! :)

>>>> # Maintain HiddenService{Dir,Port} lines in /etc/tor/torrc
>>>>
>>>> This is very similar to the torrc.d hack above, but this logic is in
>>>> Tails Server instead. This is what the mumble-server script did,
>>>> essentially, and the availability of this option is what made me say "We
>>>> won't have that problem, I think" in the text you quoted from an earlier
>>>> email of mine above. No torrc persistence is needed for this -- Tails
>>>> Server's persistent configuration will contain all the parameters needed
>>>> for knowing exactly which HiddenService{Dir,Port} lines that should be
>>>> in /etc/tor/torrc. Therefore I think it's preferable to the previous option.
>>>
>>> So you mean we shouldn't use the Tails persistence feature for this at
>>> all and simply ensure the lines are present when starting a Tails
>>> service, right? I didn't think about this before, but I think this would
>>> work.
>>
>> Unless I have the wrong assumptions here. :) How I imagine this is that
>> Tails Server itself has a persistent configuration storing the settings
>> exposed by Tails Server for each service (is service X persistent?
>> autostart? and user options etc.).
>
> Just to clarify things: Currently Tails Server does have a configuration
> file for each service (which is made persistent if the service is
> persistent). Those are currently in /usr/share/tails-server/options/,
> e.g. /usr/share/tails-server/options/mumble. But I only store options in
> there which are not part of some other configuration file, in order to
> prevent redundancy and inconsistent states. So everytime Tails Server
> needs the value of an user option, the corresponding configuration file
> (e.g. /etc/mumble-server.ini for the server password) is parsed.
> (But the persistent option is not stored anywhere else, so it is stored
> in this internal options file.)
>
> Please tell me if you see any problems with this approach.


Yes, this is exactly what we had very good reason to agree to do before,
so it's awesome! So, read my paragraph above again and just remove the
"and user options etc" part that I wrote without thinking. Then I think
we agree, right?

However, `/usr/share` is not a suitable place for storing data expected
to change, like configurations. Might I suggest `/var/lib/tails-server`
instead? The service templates should live in `/usr/share/tails-server`,
however.

>> Probably we'd also store all "persistent" hs keys here too.
>
> You mean the private key from the hidden service directory? I simply
> make the hidden service directory (e.g. /var/lib/tor/mumble) persistent,
> so I don't store this key anywhere else. I could move the hidden service
> directory


Yeah, that's right! Otherwise we'll have to fight the Apparmor profile.

>> Beyond this, each service marked
>> "persistent" would have some directory for its persistent configuration
>> too. That's all.
>
> ACK.
>
>>
>> Next, no matter how a service is started, Tails Server's CLI (or
>> similar) is involved somehow: if the user starts a service manually
>> through the GUI/CLI, then this is trivially true; if a service is marked
>> "autostart", when starting Tails we'll need a hook somewhere that calls
>> Tails Server's CLI in some way so that all such services are started.
>> So, Tails Server is involved in all cases, and can thus be responsible
>> for setting up these things.
>
> Right, that's exactly how I started impementing it right now :)


I'm glad we're on the same page, then! :)

[...]
>>>> # add_onion
>>>>
>>>> By using stem to communicate with Tor over the control port/socket to
>>>> add the hidden services, just like onionshare does (which would be a
>>>> good source for inspiration, code-wise), you don't need any torrc
>>>> persistence just like in the previous approach. This is probably the
>>>> most "proper" solution of these three (and requires implementing less
>>>> logic on our side), and it might even be the easiest after you've
>>>> familiarized yourself with the API. This seems like the best option to me.
>>>
>>> Right. I didn't see this option either, but I think this would work too.
>>> I will try this :)
>>
>> It's ~new, which might explain it. Any way, I really hope this approach
>> works out since it looks the cleanest of those presented so far!
>
> I'm positive that this will work. But I think I will use the old
> create_hidden_service() [1] instead of the new
> create_ephemeral_hidden_service() [2], because the latter does not
> create a hidden service directory, which I need to make the service
> persistent. Also, only create_hidden_service() supports client
> authentication, which I want to support.


Sounds great!

Cheers!