Mailing List Archive

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3061

Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |cjwatson@debian.org

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
_______________________________________________
openssh-bugs mailing list
openssh-bugs@mindrot.org
https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-bugs

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3061

Darren Tucker <dtucker@dtucker.net> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dtucker@dtucker.net
Attachment #3312|text/x-go |text/plain
mime type| |

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
_______________________________________________
openssh-bugs mailing list
openssh-bugs@mindrot.org
https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-bugs

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3061

--- Comment #1 from Darren Tucker <dtucker@dtucker.net> ---
FWIW since your example uses opcode 255, the current behaviour seems
more in compliance with RFC4254 than the previous behaviour:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4254#page-19:

Opcodes 160 to 255 are not yet
defined, and cause parsing to stop (they should only be used after
any other data).

other than that it doesn't take a strong stance on unknown opcodes:

the server MAY ignore any modes it does not know about

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.
_______________________________________________
openssh-bugs mailing list
openssh-bugs@mindrot.org
https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-bugs

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3061

--- Comment #2 from Michael Hudson-Doyle <mwhudson@debian.org> ---
Yes, I think this change in behaviour is probably a good thing and
closer to the spirit of the RFC (and quite possibly what was the
intention all along). I wasn't sure about the "cause parsing to stop"
comment, I guess that just means stop parsing the tty_modes
command/packet? I can't remember enough about the SSH protocol to
remember how these things are framed...

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
_______________________________________________
openssh-bugs mailing list
openssh-bugs@mindrot.org
https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-bugs

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3061

--- Comment #3 from Darren Tucker <dtucker@dtucker.net> ---
(In reply to Michael Hudson-Doyle from comment #2)
> Yes, I think this change in behaviour is probably a good thing and
> closer to the spirit of the RFC (and quite possibly what was the
> intention all along). I wasn't sure about the "cause parsing to
> stop" comment, I guess that just means stop parsing the tty_modes
> command/packet?

I'd interpret that as "cease processing the ttymode opcodes from the
packet and applying them to the pty". From the reading the code it
seems like that's the current behaviour too.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.
_______________________________________________
openssh-bugs mailing list
openssh-bugs@mindrot.org
https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-bugs