similar to: [Bug 271] SSHD should unblock SIGCHLD - POSIX signal blocks survive exec()

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 40000 matches similar to: "[Bug 271] SSHD should unblock SIGCHLD - POSIX signal blocks survive exec()"

2002 Jun 11
0
[Bug 271] New: SSHD should unblock SIGCHLD - POSIX signal blocks survive exec()
http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=271 Summary: SSHD should unblock SIGCHLD - POSIX signal blocks survive exec() Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Platform: Other OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: sshd AssignedTo:
2003 Jan 07
0
[Bug 271] SSHD should unblock SIGCHLD - POSIX signal blocks survive exec()
http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=271 ------- Additional Comments From djm at mindrot.org 2003-01-07 18:13 ------- We already reset SIGCHLD to SIG_DFL in main(), maybe we don't do it early enough... ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
2002 Jun 07
2
SIGCHLD may be inherited blocked
So, we just found some ugly behaviour of OpenSSH on Solaris. Sometimes, it seems, sshd gets started with SIGCHLD blocked, this, apparently, being the setting of sshd's parent (a shell no doubt); signal blocking is inherited across exec*(). I don't know exactly which shell, or what really is at fault, but it happens. The problem is that the code in collect_children() first blocks SIGCHLD
2002 Apr 23
0
[Bug 182] ssh should still force SIGCHLD to be SIG_DFL when calling ssh-rand-helper
http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182 djm at mindrot.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Additional Comments From djm at mindrot.org 2002-04-23 23:31
2001 Sep 18
1
SIGCHLD race condition?
We use ssh (RedHat 2.5.2p2-5) heavily in non-interactive mode, for managing servers from central controllers, and transferring applications/ data around networks. Very occasionally we've seen the situation where the ssh client and server are both stuck in select, both selecting on only the tcp socket of the connection, and with no timeout. No children of sshd remain (even as zombies), and it
2002 Jan 25
0
[Bug 79] New: A race with select() in SIGCHLD handling causes hangs occasionally
http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79 Summary: A race with select() in SIGCHLD handling causes hangs occasionally Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 3.0.2p1 Platform: All URL: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openssh-unix- dev&m=100454673601558&w=2 OS/Version: All
2001 Sep 26
1
SIGCHLD race condition? (fwd)
Can anyone offer any advice on this issue? We've tried patching sshd to have a maximum 10 second timeout when calling select() in serverloop.c, and this doesn't appear to have had any ill effects. Thanks, Paul ------- Forwarded Message Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:49:40 -0700 From: Paul Menage <pmenage at ensim.com> To: mouring at etoh.eviladmin.org cc: Paul Menage
2002 Mar 22
0
[Bug 182] New: ssh should still force SIGCHLD to be SIG_DFL when calling ssh-rand-helper
http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182 Summary: ssh should still force SIGCHLD to be SIG_DFL when calling ssh-rand-helper Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 3.1p1 Platform: ix86 OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ssh AssignedTo:
2019 Jan 25
0
[klibc:update-dash] jobs - Do not block when waiting on SIGCHLD
Commit-ID: de74268fc82f0b99743904f5d18a69ad690eec2c Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=de74268fc82f0b99743904f5d18a69ad690eec2c Author: Herbert Xu <herbert at gondor.apana.org.au> AuthorDate: Mon, 7 May 2018 00:40:34 +0800 Committer: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> CommitDate: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 02:57:21 +0000 [klibc] jobs - Do not block
2020 Mar 28
0
[klibc:update-dash] dash: jobs - Do not block when waiting on SIGCHLD
Commit-ID: dfe960aa216a4495cf926fac099caacabc5684e3 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=dfe960aa216a4495cf926fac099caacabc5684e3 Author: Herbert Xu <herbert at gondor.apana.org.au> AuthorDate: Mon, 7 May 2018 00:40:34 +0800 Committer: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> CommitDate: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 21:42:55 +0000 [klibc] dash: jobs - Do not
2015 May 01
0
[Bug 1469] Should sshd detect and reject vulnerable SSH keys (re: Debian DSA-1571 and DSA-1576)
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1469 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|
2004 Aug 25
2
[patch] sshd with re-exec disabled causes stdin to get closed.
I ran into a bug while testing 3.9p1. If you start sshd with -r (re-exec disabled), once the daemon is forked to handle a client, the child closes stdin by accident. This causes FD 0 to get re-used by the next open call which eventually you end up with a mess. In the perticual case I saw, the pty fd ended up on FD 0 was closed by do_exec_pty(), pty_make_controlling_tty() then opened a new ttyfd
2003 Jul 23
1
SIGCHLD SIG_IGN, then wait - warning messages
Rsync maintainers please review rsync bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98740 The code in question is in socket.c in start_accept_loop. The user is getting these warning messages:
2004 Apr 27
1
[Bug 815] RFE: sshd should be able to set environment variables defined by the client
http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=815 djm at mindrot.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #578 is|0 |1 obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From djm at mindrot.org 2004-04-27 12:28 ------- Created
2015 Aug 11
0
[Bug 1469] Should sshd detect and reject vulnerable SSH keys (re: Debian DSA-1571 and DSA-1576)
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1469 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #10 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Set all RESOLVED bugs to CLOSED with
2000 Nov 22
2
fds closed after SIGCHLD bug still in newest version (fwd)
can someone confirm this? it does not happen on openbsd. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Florian Wunderlich <fwunderlich at devbrain.de> Subject: Re: fds closed after SIGCHLD bug still in newest version Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:44:17 +0100 Size: 3926 Url:
2006 Mar 01
1
sshd blocking SIGALARM turns out to be due to tcpd
Ian Jackson: > I recently encountered a bug where some ssh login sessions would > apparently inherit a blocked SIGALRM. A web search showed up two > relevant threads: > http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2005-Dec/2628.html > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openssh-unix-dev&m=113533337923128&w=2 > et seq - but sadly no answers. > > Experimentation with
2009 Feb 25
2
miss handling of the SIGHUP signal for sshd when sshd is started with a relative path sshd_config file
Hi I am just porting ssh-5.2 to my HPUX system. but while I'm doing it, I accidently found a different handling of the sshd for the SIGHUP signal when it is started with a "./sshd_config" and "/sshd_config". The problem is as following: root at sshpa6# uname -a HP-UX sshpa6 B.11.31 U 9000/800 2404418693 unlimited-user license root at sshpa6#
2013 Jul 03
5
[Bug 2124] New: TCP_NODELAY not set by sshd for non-interactive non-exec sessions
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2124 Bug ID: 2124 Summary: TCP_NODELAY not set by sshd for non-interactive non-exec sessions Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: trivial Priority: P5 Component: sshd
2012 Aug 29
0
Bug#686199: unblock: xen-api/1.3.2-11
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian.org at packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Hi, Please unblock package xen-api. The PAM fix which we did for version 1.3.2-10 wasn't correct, and thanks to the help of Steve Langasek, we have it in a good shape now. The details of the conversation is available in the Ubuntu BTS here: