Compiled OK, and operating nicely on CentOS 6.6, both 32/64 bit.
Really appreciate the UpdateHostkeys feature!
One issue I noticed, the screen output gets garbled if the user has been
"asked" to "Accept" the new hostkeys.
Looks like the screen output is missing the CR's, and only LF's get
presented.
[root at be2 .ssh]# ssh be1 ls -l
Warning: Permanently added 'be1,fec0::ffff:0:1:c0a8:415' (ECDSA) to the
list of known hosts.
total 12
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1829 Jan 23 17:43 authorized_keys
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 575 Jan 21 17:24 sshd.pam
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 9 14:17 tmp
[root at be2 .ssh]# ssh -o UpdateHostkeys=yes be1 ls -l
Learned new hostkey: RSA SHA256:Alc84pvwkLVLIyRC7Z5HUpYeySwK+aMykv9cw6LCark
Learned new hostkey: DSA SHA256:4RFtn0pMD4/AiKANWn6K3ODT66Jw8CE4SXOnAbOBXgQ
Learned new hostkey: ED25519 SHA256:OzKAhPkHQDfk7GTvSZRKIHIv+25inWKy2n0PF8HbIhY
Learned new hostkey: RSA SHA256:ZaHa2K0aOv6zzVTNviT08xk/ZY8xeML9uz62OiHAxOM
Learned new hostkey: DSA SHA256:yYtO6dUL0cATSEBAyOyQApxehlhliWY5t5Z0p1CplpY
Learned new hostkey: ECDSA SHA256:70rXiF+VgchFSvKmBQ/sXw+iANmwVTnmzQzlytaBpx4
Learned new hostkey: ED25519 SHA256:n/qAw/sTr+4KnQ1okNg/s3tgV9wRjXULbP/a9Jy++oA
Accept updated hostkeys? (yes/no): yes
total 12
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1829 Jan 23 17:43 authorized_keys
-rw-r--r-- 1
root root 575 Jan 21 17:24 sshd.pam
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 9 14:17 tmp
[root at be2 .ssh]#
Herb Goldman
Customer Advocate
SSH Communications Security
Takomotie 8, 00380 Helsinki, Finland
+1 302 690-7607 | +358 9 2316-7168
herb.goldman at ssh.com | Skype: "sshherb"
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Herb.Goldman at ssh.com wrote:> Compiled OK, and operating nicely on CentOS 6.6, both 32/64 bit. > Really appreciate the UpdateHostkeys feature! > One issue I noticed, the screen output gets garbled if the user has been "asked" to "Accept" the new hostkeys. > Looks like the screen output is missing the CR's, and only LF's get presented. > > [root at be2 .ssh]# ssh be1 ls -l > Warning: Permanently added 'be1,fec0::ffff:0:1:c0a8:415' (ECDSA) to the list of known hosts. > total 12 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1829 Jan 23 17:43 authorized_keys > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 575 Jan 21 17:24 sshd.pam > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 9 14:17 tmp > > [root at be2 .ssh]# ssh -o UpdateHostkeys=yes be1 ls -l > Learned new hostkey: RSA SHA256:Alc84pvwkLVLIyRC7Z5HUpYeySwK+aMykv9cw6LCark > Learned new hostkey: DSA SHA256:4RFtn0pMD4/AiKANWn6K3ODT66Jw8CE4SXOnAbOBXgQ > Learned new hostkey: ED25519 SHA256:OzKAhPkHQDfk7GTvSZRKIHIv+25inWKy2n0PF8HbIhY > Learned new hostkey: RSA SHA256:ZaHa2K0aOv6zzVTNviT08xk/ZY8xeML9uz62OiHAxOM > Learned new hostkey: DSA SHA256:yYtO6dUL0cATSEBAyOyQApxehlhliWY5t5Z0p1CplpY > Learned new hostkey: ECDSA SHA256:70rXiF+VgchFSvKmBQ/sXw+iANmwVTnmzQzlytaBpx4 > Learned new hostkey: ED25519 SHA256:n/qAw/sTr+4KnQ1okNg/s3tgV9wRjXULbP/a9Jy++oA > Accept updated hostkeys? (yes/no): yesThat's strange - your commandline doesn't indicate you are using 'ask'. Are you using ControlPersist? I'm just fixing a bug between ControlPersist and UpdateHostkeys=ask -d
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Herb.Goldman at ssh.com wrote:> Compiled OK, and operating nicely on CentOS 6.6, both 32/64 bit. > Really appreciate the UpdateHostkeys feature! > One issue I noticed, the screen output gets garbled if the user has been "asked" to "Accept" the new hostkeys. > Looks like the screen output is missing the CR's, and only LF's get presented. > > [root at be2 .ssh]# ssh be1 ls -l > Warning: Permanently added 'be1,fec0::ffff:0:1:c0a8:415' (ECDSA) to the list of known hosts. > total 12 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1829 Jan 23 17:43 authorized_keys > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 575 Jan 21 17:24 sshd.pam > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 9 14:17 tmp > > [root at be2 .ssh]# ssh -o UpdateHostkeys=yes be1 ls -l > Learned new hostkey: RSA SHA256:Alc84pvwkLVLIyRC7Z5HUpYeySwK+aMykv9cw6LCark > Learned new hostkey: DSA SHA256:4RFtn0pMD4/AiKANWn6K3ODT66Jw8CE4SXOnAbOBXgQ > Learned new hostkey: ED25519 SHA256:OzKAhPkHQDfk7GTvSZRKIHIv+25inWKy2n0PF8HbIhY > Learned new hostkey: RSA SHA256:ZaHa2K0aOv6zzVTNviT08xk/ZY8xeML9uz62OiHAxOM > Learned new hostkey: DSA SHA256:yYtO6dUL0cATSEBAyOyQApxehlhliWY5t5Z0p1CplpY > Learned new hostkey: ECDSA SHA256:70rXiF+VgchFSvKmBQ/sXw+iANmwVTnmzQzlytaBpx4 > Learned new hostkey: ED25519 SHA256:n/qAw/sTr+4KnQ1okNg/s3tgV9wRjXULbP/a9Jy++oA > Accept updated hostkeys? (yes/no): yes > total 12 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1829 Jan 23 17:43 authorized_keys > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 575 Jan 21 17:24 sshd.pam > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 9 14:17 tmp > [root at be2 .ssh]#I think this patch should solve this problem - can you confirm? diff --git a/clientloop.c b/clientloop.c index 644a1f2..0a58db7 100644 --- a/clientloop.c +++ b/clientloop.c @@ -2176,7 +2176,8 @@ update_known_hosts(struct hostkeys_update_ctx *ctx) free(fp); } if (options.update_hostkeys == SSH_UPDATE_HOSTKEYS_ASK) { - leave_raw_mode(options.request_tty == REQUEST_TTY_FORCE); + if (have_pty) + leave_raw_mode(options.request_tty == REQUEST_TTY_FORCE); response = NULL; for (i = 0; !quit_pending && i < 3; i++) { free(response); @@ -2196,7 +2197,8 @@ update_known_hosts(struct hostkeys_update_ctx *ctx) if (quit_pending || i >= 3 || response == NULL) options.update_hostkeys = 0; free(response); - enter_raw_mode(options.request_tty == REQUEST_TTY_FORCE); + if (have_pty) + enter_raw_mode(options.request_tty == REQUEST_TTY_FORCE); } /*
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Damien Miller wrote:> I think this patch should solve this problem - can you confirm?I managed to reproduce the problem (which was incorrectly setting TTY "raw" mode) and have committed a fix. -d