Re: Incorrect protocol implementation by OpenSSH?
- From: "H.K. Kingston-Smith" <HKK-S@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:44:43 GMT
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 08:49:36 +0100, Simon Tatham wrote:
H.K. Kingston-Smith <HKK-S@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am not sure I entirely agree with that. If the client specifies
want-reply = 0 and the server does not support "exec", how can the
client know the reason behind the deadlock?
It can't.
It would seem that an "exec" (or "shell") request with want-reply
set to 0 sent to a server that does not support such a capability will
necessarily lead to a deadlock. Is this right in general?
I think so, yes. But you cannot deduce from that that the _server_
should do something different in that situation: it's the _client's_
fault for setting want_reply=0, and so the client should have done
something different. It isn't the server's job to exceed the protocol
specification in order to compensate for a broken client; it's the
client's job not to be broken in the first place.
That's right; OpenSSH is broken here.
.
- References:
- Incorrect protocol implementation by OpenSSH?
- From: H.K. Kingston-Smith
- Re: Incorrect protocol implementation by OpenSSH?
- From: H.K. Kingston-Smith
- Re: Incorrect protocol implementation by OpenSSH?
- From: Simon Tatham
- Re: Incorrect protocol implementation by OpenSSH?
- From: H.K. Kingston-Smith
- Re: Incorrect protocol implementation by OpenSSH?
- From: Simon Tatham
- Incorrect protocol implementation by OpenSSH?
- Prev by Date: Re: Incorrect protocol implementation by OpenSSH?
- Next by Date: Re: Incorrect protocol implementation by OpenSSH?
- Previous by thread: Re: Incorrect protocol implementation by OpenSSH?
- Next by thread: Re: Incorrect protocol implementation by OpenSSH?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|