Torsten Foertsch
2005-Mar-04 17:29 UTC
[PATCH] controlling remote port forwarding over control path
Hi, the attached patch implements adding and canceling of remote port forwardings by communicating with a running ssh client via a control socket. Thus, one can do this: ssh -MNfS ~/.ssh/ctl remotehost and then: ssh -S ~/.ssh/ctl -O add-rforward 2000:forward:80 localhost to add a new remote forwarding or ssh -S ~/.ssh/ctl -O cancel-rforward localhost:2000 localhost to remove it. The patch is against openssh-SNAP-20050302 so the new fine tuned forwarding code is already contained. While working on the patch a few questions/inconveniences have emerged: 1) why is mux_command in ssh.c not part of Options? 2) the current implementation allows -O to occur only once. So, to add or remove multiple channels ssh has to be called multiple times. Would it make sense to extend the code to allow it to occur multiple times? ssh -S ~/.ssh/ctl \ -O add-rforward 2000:forward:80 \ -O add-rforward 2001:forward:80 \ localhost 3) permitted_opens in channels.c is a real problem. The current code allocates a new element from the end of this array while adding a new forwarding. But when the forwarding is cancelled the element is not really freed. It is marked somehow to be not in use but the current code cannot reuse it. 4) again permitted_opens. channel_request_rforward_cancel() identifies the local side of a forwarding only by permitted_opens[i].host_to_connect and permitted_opens[i].listen_port. Since a forwarding is really a quadruple this looks a little fragile to me. In fact you can try to remove a forwarding by specifying only a port number ssh -S ~/.ssh/ctl -O cancel-rforward 2000 localhost This matches an element of permitted_opens and resets it but it does not match an open channel at the server side. So the listening socket is not closed. Now when someone tries to connect to that port the server forwards the connection to the client. Here it does not match an element of permitted_opens. Hence WARNING: Server requests forwarding for unknown listen_port 2000 is printed and the connection is closed. I have not yet changed this behaviour because it is the same code that is used when adding or canceling forwardings with the ssh command line ("~C", then "-R2000:forward:80", then "~C", then "-KR2000" yields the same result). But I think it's rather a bug than a feature. Doesn't it make more sense to represent forwardings as quadruples (remotehost, remoteport, localhost, localport) also at the client side? 5) I think I have to implement -O add-lforward and -O cancel-lforward, too. 6) Also -O list-forwards would be useful, wouldn't it? Torsten -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: openssh.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 5214 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-dev/attachments/20050304/d71166d1/attachment.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-dev/attachments/20050304/d71166d1/attachment-0001.bin
Damien Miller
2005-Mar-04 22:10 UTC
[PATCH] controlling remote port forwarding over control path
Torsten Foertsch wrote:> Hi, > > the attached patch implements adding and canceling of remote port > forwardings by communicating with a running ssh client via a control > socket.Cool, I was planning on doing something like this. However, instead of a commandline like: > ssh -S ~/.ssh/ctl -O add-rforward 2000:forward:80 localhost Which is not very getopt()ish. Could I suggest: ssh -S ~/.ssh/ctl -O add-rforward localhost 2000:forward:80 (i.e. place the forarding arguments where the command goes normally) This has the advantage of being easier to extend to multiple forwarding specifications: ssh -S ~/.ssh/ctl -O add-rforward xxx 2222:host1:22 2223:host2:22 ...> While working on the patch a few questions/inconveniences have emerged: > > 1) why is mux_command in ssh.c not part of Options?It didn't seem like a good place to put it - it is a runtime control thing like -N or -f. What do you have in mind?> 2) the current implementation allows -O to occur only once. So, to add > or remove multiple channels ssh has to be called multiple times. Would > it make sense to extend the code to allow it to occur multiple times?See above.> 3) permitted_opens in channels.c is a real problem. The current code > allocates a new element from the end of this array while adding a new > forwarding. But when the forwarding is cancelled the element is not > really freed. It is marked somehow to be not in use but the current > code cannot reuse it.Yes, it is a small leak but, worse, it makes it easier to hit the SSH_MAX_FORWARDS_PER_DIRECTION limit. Perhaps this list would be better off wrapped in functions to add/delete/check entries.> 4) again permitted_opens. channel_request_rforward_cancel() identifies > the local side of a forwarding only by > permitted_opens[i].host_to_connect and permitted_opens[i].listen_port. > Since a forwarding is really a quadruple this looks a little fragile to > me. In fact you can try to remove a forwarding by specifying only a > port number > > ssh -S ~/.ssh/ctl -O cancel-rforward 2000 localhost > > This matches an element of permitted_opens and resets it but it does not > match an open channel at the server side. So the listening socket is > not closed. Now when someone tries to connect to that port the server > forwards the connection to the client. Here it does not match an > element of permitted_opens. Hence > > WARNING: Server requests forwarding for unknown listen_port 2000 > > is printed and the connection is closed. > > I have not yet changed this behaviour because it is the same code that > is used when adding or canceling forwardings with the ssh command line > ("~C", then "-R2000:forward:80", then "~C", then "-KR2000" yields the > same result). But I think it's rather a bug than a feature. > > Doesn't it make more sense to represent forwardings as quadruples > (remotehost, remoteport, localhost, localport) also at the client side?There are a couple of things here: 1. Deleting remote forwardings by port makes sense unless you have them bound to multiple addresses. I don't think it is necessary to use quadruples to specify which remote forward to kill, because a remote forward can be uniquely identified using just the bind_address and port. Though maybe it is less confusing... 2. If we do wildcard deletes, then we should do them properly and kill all the relevant channels. So the behaviour you see on channel delete is a separate bug.> 5) I think I have to implement -O add-lforward and -O cancel-lforward, > too.That would be handy too :) Don't forget -O add-dforward :)> 6) Also -O list-forwards would be useful, wouldn't it?Yes. Could you create a bug on http://bugzilla.mindrot.org and attach your patch? We won't be able to get to this until after the imminent release, but I would like to see something like this added. Thanks, Damien Miller
Maybe Matching Threads
- [Bug 993] adding and removing forwardings via the control connection
- Protocol 2 remote forwarding patch
- Experimental -R support patch for openssh client
- [PATCH/RFC 0/6] New mux client request to list open tcp forwardings.
- [PATCH] Implement remote dynamic TCP forwarding