similar to: [Bug 85] ssh -2 localhost od /bin/ls | true ignore SIGPIPE

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 60000 matches similar to: "[Bug 85] ssh -2 localhost od /bin/ls | true ignore SIGPIPE"

2006 Jun 21
0
[Bug 85] ssh -2 localhost od /bin/ls | true ignore SIGPIPE
http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85 chris at ex-parrot.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |chris at ex-parrot.com ------- Comment #4 from chris at ex-parrot.com 2006-06-22 08:50 ------- I see this bug has now been open for
2008 May 09
3
[Bug 85] ssh -2 localhost od /bin/ls | true ignore SIGPIPE
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |djm at mindrot.org --- Comment #6 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> 2008-05-09 14:41:19 --- The
2003 Jan 25
0
[Bug 85] ssh -2 localhost od /bin/ls | true ignore SIGPIPE
http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85 markus at openbsd.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|markus at openbsd.org |openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org Status|ASSIGNED |NEW ------- Additional Comments From markus at
2011 Sep 20
3
selinux policy remnant according to /bin/ls on CentOS 6.0 box
I installed CentOS 6.0 on 2 different x86_64 boxen. Both originally had selinux installed and enabled. I never touched selinux other than to remove as much of it as I could via rpm -e. As far as I can tell, here are the remaining packages that have something to do with it: # rpm -qa | grep -iE 'sel|pol' checkpolicy-2.0.22-1.el6.x86_64 libselinux-2.0.94-2.el6.x86_64
2009 Apr 21
3
ssh localhost yes | true
Referring to "CLOSED FIXED" Bug 85: https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85 Assuming that you have your machine setup so that the following commands run without prompting: ssh -2 localhost pwd ssh -1 localhost pwd Then this command: ssh -1 localhost yes | true always produces this output: Write failed flushing stdout buffer. write stdout: Broken pipe Yet
2001 May 21
1
ignoring SIGPIPE causing problems in pipes
Hi. I'm writing an article on network backups, and instead of using my old ssh1 software, I decided to go with openssh all the way. I got the hang of the openssh way of doing protocol 2 public key authentication, but ssh is failing to terminate when a pipe is broken. I am ssh-ing to a remote host and doing a cat or zcat of a dump file, then on the localhost, I'm using restore to extract
2018 Dec 01
1
[nbdkit PATCH] sh: Don't let child inherit SIGPIPE ignored
While nbdkit itself must run with SIGPIPE ignored, many applications expect to inherit SIGPIPE in the default state. What's worse, POSIX states that a non-interactive shell script cannot use 'trap' to undo an inherited SIG_IGN on SIGPIPE. I have seen several bug reports over the years of something that works for a developer but fails under a CI environment, where the root cause was
2009 Jun 25
0
ignoring SIGPIPE signal + error loading lapack routines
Dear list I don't know whether this is the right place to post this message. If not, please redirect me to the proper place. i have a Perl application on Linux that uses R (V2.9.0) through the Perl-R interface. basically, the application performs statistical analysis using R, and displays the R output (JPG image of the particular analysis) to the user. in general, this works fine. but i
2019 Dec 06
0
Error in close.connection(p) : ignoring SIGPIPE signal
Hi Benjamin, you cannot pipe to echo, since it does not read from stdin. echo just echos is first arg, i.e. echo /dev/stdin > /dev/null will echo the string "/dev/stdin"to /dev/stdout, which is redirected to /dev/null. Try p <- pipe("cat > /dev/null", open = "w") instead. Regards, Andreas 2019-12-06 02:46 GMT+01:00 Benjamin Tyner<btyner at
2019 Dec 06
2
Error in close.connection(p) : ignoring SIGPIPE signal
Not sure if this is a bug, so posting here first. If I run: ?? cnt <- 0L ?? while (TRUE) { ? ? ?? cnt <- cnt + 1L ? ? ?? p <- pipe("echo /dev/stdin > /dev/null", open = "w") ? ? ?? writeLines("foobar", p) ? ? ?? tryCatch(close(p), error = function(e) { print(cnt); stop(e)}) ?? } then once cnt gets to around 650, it fails with: ?? [1] 654 ??
2019 Dec 06
1
Error in close.connection(p) : ignoring SIGPIPE signal
Andreas, How right you are! Still, I find it curious that in the context of the while(TRUE) loop, I am allowed to do this 653 times, with failure on the 654th attempt. Perhaps there is something asynchronous going on? If I eliminate the looping, it does indeed fail (as expected) on the first attempt to close the pipe. Regards Ben On 12/6/19 2:04 AM, Andreas Kersting wrote: > Hi
2016 Dec 02
0
[Bug 1592] Fingerprints for SSHD host key don't match (local ssh-keygen -l vs. ssh localhost)
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |djm at mindrot.org --- Comment #1 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Can you reproduce this with a
2016 Dec 02
0
[Bug 1592] Fingerprints for SSHD host key don't match (local ssh-keygen -l vs. ssh localhost)
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592 --- Comment #2 from doerges at pre-sense.de --- I don't know. Somehow the reproducer seems to be damaged. $ file prob.tar.gz prob.tar.gz: data $ gunzip prob.tar.gz gzip: prob.tar.gz: not in gzip format $ sha256sum prob.tar.gz 0b505d2c32adf3b714c5adeb7cc3f6589d3506ee086aa2dc2bddc5e518ba8198 prob.tar.gz -- You are receiving this mail
2017 Jun 26
0
[Bug 1592] Fingerprints for SSHD host key don't match (local ssh-keygen -l vs. ssh localhost)
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Damien Miller <djm at
2009 Apr 26
0
[Bug 1592] New: Fingerprints for SSHD host key don't match (local ssh-keygen -l vs. ssh localhost)
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592 Summary: Fingerprints for SSHD host key don't match (local ssh-keygen -l vs. ssh localhost) Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.1p1 Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: sshd
2005 May 12
1
[Bug 1040] SSH only believes 127.0.0.1 is IPV4 localhost, not 127/8
http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1040 Summary: SSH only believes 127.0.0.1 is IPV4 localhost, not 127/8 Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 3.8.1p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ssh AssignedTo: bitbucket at mindrot.org
2010 Nov 21
3
[Bug 1839] New: ssh/scp to localhost/127.0.0.1 should not update known_hosts
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1839 Summary: ssh/scp to localhost/127.0.0.1 should not update known_hosts Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.3p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: Miscellaneous AssignedTo:
2023 Aug 04
0
[RFC PATCH v1 1/2] vsock: send SIGPIPE on write to shutdowned socket
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 03:46:47PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >Hi Stefano, > >On 02.08.2023 10:46, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 05:17:26PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >>> POSIX requires to send SIGPIPE on write to SOCK_STREAM socket which was >>> shutdowned with SHUT_WR flag or its peer was shutdowned with SHUT_RD >>> flag.
2000 Dec 11
1
OpenSSH 2.3.0p1: Broken pipe / SIGPIPE
Dear OpenSSH gurus! ;-) I recently upgraded from "OpenSSH 2.1.1p4" to "OpenSSH 2.3.0p1" on my Linux 2.2.17 box with OpenSSL 0.9.5a (RedHat 7.0). According to the "ChangeLog", there was a change in SIGPIPE handling: | 20000930 | [...] | - (djm) Ignore SIGPIPEs from serverloop to child. Fixes crashes with | very short lived X connections. Bug report from
2023 Aug 04
0
[RFC PATCH v1 1/2] vsock: send SIGPIPE on write to shutdowned socket
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 05:34:20PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: > > >On 04.08.2023 17:28, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 03:46:47PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >>> Hi Stefano, >>> >>> On 02.08.2023 10:46, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >>>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 05:17:26PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >>>>>