Displaying 20 results from an estimated 70000 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:
>>>>>