openssh unix dev - Feb 2003 - [Bug 413] Port forwarding: [localhost:]localport:remotehost:remoteport

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413

markus at openbsd.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED



------- Additional Comments From markus at openbsd.org  2003-02-03 19:50 -------
i'll look into this.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413

dtucker at zip.com.au changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Attachment #182 is|0                           |1
           obsolete|                            |



------- Additional Comments From dtucker at zip.com.au  2003-02-05 00:57 -------
Created an attachment (id=217)
 --> (http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/attachment.cgi?id=217&action=view)
Implement optional address binding for port forwards (update)

Updated based on some feedback from Markus:
* re-added incorrectly removed code
* simplified GatewayPorts/bindaddress handling
* reduced code duplication of parse_forward()
* use NULL or 127.0.0.1 instead of localhost



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413





------- Additional Comments From rumen at skalasoft.com  2003-02-07 06:32
-------
Created an attachment (id=219)
 --> (http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/attachment.cgi?id=219&action=view)
about attachment (id=217)

About attachment (id=217)

- ssh_config.5 should be updated too (options LocalForward and RemoteForward)
- we should set GatewayPorts to yes in ssh config to use new forward shema.

Created attachment:
- fix segfault, when we use LocalForward and RemoteForward in ssh config.
- make ssh option GatewayPorts obsolete (might this option is useless with new
forward shema?).
- correct forward messages in ssh.c

What about readconf methods:
  void add_local_forward(Options *, const char *, u_short, const char *,
u_short);
  void add_remote_forward(Options *, const char *, u_short, const char *,
u_short);
to be changed as follows:
  void add_local_forward(Options *, const Forward*);
  void add_remote_forward(Options *, const Forward*);
In first case developer should read C file to see agriment meaning. Second case
is more obvious.




------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413

rumen at skalasoft.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Attachment #219 is|0                           |1
              patch|                            |





------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413





------- Additional Comments From markus at openbsd.org  2003-02-07 07:44 -------
no, GatewayPorts should still default to 'no', but with -L 
local:port:target:port the listen address should be overwritten.
without 'local:' we should still use GatewayPorts like before.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413





------- Additional Comments From markus at openbsd.org  2003-02-07 07:48 -------
re attachment 219: 
1. please don't use strncat (use strlcpy or snprintf instead).
2. i don't think the patch to ssh.c is correct.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413





------- Additional Comments From rumen at skalasoft.com  2003-02-07 19:49
-------
samples:
        LocalForward              10080 127.1.0.253:80
        LocalForward            *:10180 127.1.0.253:80
        LocalForward    127.1.0.1:10280 127.1.0.253:80
        LocalForward     10.0.0.1:10380 127.1.0.253:80

second line is equal to GatewayPorts=yes and -L port:target:port in unpached
ssh.

GatewayPorts in server must exist, but in client hmm.
In patched version (patch 217+219) we can set forwards as above.
It is easy to use only LocalForward (as show above), instead both GatewayPorts
and LocalForward.




------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413





------- Additional Comments From markus at openbsd.org  2003-02-07 23:45 -------
still we need to keep current -g behaviour for existing setups.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413

dtucker at zip.com.au changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Attachment #217 is|0                           |1
           obsolete|                            |
 Attachment #219 is|0                           |1
           obsolete|                            |



------- Additional Comments From dtucker at zip.com.au  2003-02-12 22:59 -------
Created an attachment (id=229)
 --> (http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/attachment.cgi?id=229&action=view)
Implement optional address binding for port forwards (update 2)

* merge bug fixes from Rumen (RemoteForward and LocalForward options).
* replace strncat with snprintf as per Markus.	Note: used a static buffer.
* allow client to override GatewayPorts with a "*" listen address,
also from
Markus.

Changing the arguments to add_local_forward() and add_remote_forward() will
mean more code to populate the structs, I don't think it's worth it. 

Markus, could you please elaborate on "i don't think the patch to ssh.c
is
correct"?



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.