openssh bugs - Sep 2005 - [Bug 910] known_hosts port numbers

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=910


fullung at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fullung at gmail.com






------- 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=910





------- Additional Comments From dtucker at zip.com.au  2005-09-19 13:19 -------
(In reply to comment #25)
> Created an attachment (id=954)
 --> (http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/attachment.cgi?id=954&action=view)
[edit]
> Debug traces of sshd and ssh
> 
> When I tested the Patch against OpenSSH 4.2p1 the ssh client coredumps. The
> debug traces are attached. This happens in hpux. 
I don't see how the patch could have affected the DH exchange where it
crashes.

You don't happen to be using gcc-4.x on your HP-UX box, do you?  I've
personally
had problems with 4.0.0 and helped someone who traced problems to 4.0.1, both on
HPPA.




------- 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=910





------- Additional Comments From senthilkumar_sen at hotpop.com  2005-09-27
02:43 -------
Im using HP C compiler. I will cross check the patch with prior versions of 
OpenSSH and will let you know the results.



------- 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=910





------- Additional Comments From dtucker at zip.com.au  2005-09-27 11:10 -------
(In reply to comment #29)
> Im using HP C compiler. I will cross check the patch with prior versions of
> OpenSSH and will let you know the results.
Also, if you're using openssl-0.9.8, please try 0.9.7g instead.  The debug
trace
shows a client-side coredump very similar to bug #1085.



------- 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=910


t8m at centrum.cz changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |t8m at centrum.cz






------- 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=910





------- Additional Comments From senthilkumar_sen at hotpop.com  2005-09-30
01:05 -------
Just a add on details for attachment id=954 , Im using
OpenSSH_4.2p1, OpenSSL 0.9.7e 
 




------- 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=910





------- Additional Comments From dtucker at zip.com.au  2005-10-03 10:26 -------
(In reply to comment #31)
> Just a add on details for attachment id=954 , Im using
> OpenSSH_4.2p1, OpenSSL 0.9.7e 
Senthil, could you please feed your ssh to a debugger and see where it dies?  If
you have gdb, this is something like:
$ gdb /path/to/ssh
(gdb) set args -vvv server.example.com
(gdb) run
[wait for segfault]
(gdb) backtrace

Then attach the output?  Thanks.




------- 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=910


dtucker at zip.com.au changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Attachment #946 is|0                           |1
           obsolete|                            |




------- Additional Comments From dtucker at zip.com.au  2005-10-03 15:08 -------
Created an attachment (id=980)
 --> (http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/attachment.cgi?id=980&action=view)
Simplified version of attachment id #946.

Seems to work OK with HashKnownHosts and HostbasedAuthentication (at least, as
well as can be expected).



------- 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=910





------- Additional Comments From senthilkumar_sen at hotpop.com  2005-10-06
20:04 -------
The patch id=980 works without any problem in HP-UX. When I digged more on this 
to find the corner case, I found in the patch id=946 the following code seems to
be responsible for the problem.
>if ((p = strchr(host, ':')) != NULL && strchr(p+1,
':') != NULL)
>ret = asprintf(&p, "[%s]:%hd", host, port); /* IPv6 */
>else
>ret = asprintf(&p, "%s:%hd", host, port);
This call asprintf is not supported in HP-UX libc and it is part of glibc. Even 
when I used the equivalent sprintf to avoid compilation errors, it results in 
coredump as said in attachment id=954. If needed I will attach the gdb backtrace
of the coredump.



------- 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=910





------- Additional Comments From dtucker at zip.com.au  2005-10-06 20:37 -------
(In reply to comment #34)
> The patch id=980 works without any problem in HP-UX.
Thanks.
> This call asprintf is not supported in HP-UX libc and it is part of glibc.
asprintf is a GNUism but it's present on many other systems, but not all. 
If we
end up using in within OpenSSH then we'll add an implementation to
libopenbsd-compat for those systems that don't have it natively.
> Even  when I used the equivalent sprintf to avoid compilation errors, it
> results in coredump as said in attachment id=954.
A literal asprintf->sprintf replacement doesn't allocate any memory, so
unless
you did a malloc too then that's probably the reason for the crash
(attempting
to deref an uninitialized pointer).
> If needed I will attach the gdb backtrace of the coredump.
Not necessary, unless you can reproduce the crash with attachment #980.

In general, when reporting problems you should mention if you've made any
changes, even if if you think they're not related.  Usually it won't
matter, but
sometimes it does.  Same goes for oddball compiler flags (if you're seeing
intermittent crashes after building with "./configure
--with-cflags=-'-Dsizeof(x)=rand()'" then we don't care so much
:-)



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