On Nov 10, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, James Housley wrote:
>
>> Looking at the code it seems the same should be applied between
>> lines 767/768, do you agree?
>
> Oh yes, good spotting!
>
> I guess the '35000' value is also nicer as a define with a nice name.
Okay. So does this look better?
+
+ /* RFC4253 section 6.1 Maximum Packet Length says:
+
+ "All implementations MUST be able to process
packets with
+ uncompressed payload length of 32768 bytes or
less and
+ total packet size of 35000 bytes or less
(including length,
+ padding length, payload, padding, and MAC.)."
+
+ */
+ if(packet_length > THE_DANIEL_STENBERG_CONSTANT) {
+ return -1;
+ }
+
Maybe that name needs a little work.
Maybe MAX_SSH_PACKET_LEN would be better.
Jim
-- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign . \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail . X - NO Word docs in e-mail . / \ ----------------------------------------------------------------- jeh@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power to Serve jim@TheHousleys.Net http://www.TheHousleys.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines" -- AnonReceived on 2006-11-10