On 03/05/2012 06:49 PM, Steven Dake wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 12:02 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, Steven Dake wrote:
>>
>>> I made this change to stop getting the 82 packets which were causing
>>> the leaks.
>>>
>>> I am not in favor of asserting the lib when packet 3 is received.
>>> There are probably many conditions under which the error packet 3
>>> could be received with different ssh daemons (I am using openssh for
>>> the server atm). I'd prefer it be rejected silently (or given back to
>>> the api caller) over an assertion.
>>
>> Hey!
>>
>> I've not really caught up the backs and forths of this discussion. Is
>> there an outcome or patch suggested or where do we stand on the leak thing?
>>
>
> Packet type MSG_UNIMPLEMENTED will be leaked if a keepalive_config is
> sent before authorization is done (My code was doing this previously as
> I thought keepalive should be done immediately after opening the session).
>
> Packet type MSG_REQUEST_FAILURE will be leaked every time a keepalive is
> sent when the keepalive_config was set with want_reply (2nd parameter)
> set to 1. This was the cause of the massive leaking that occurred. I
> just set that second parameter to 0 and there are no more leaks.
>
> Neither of these message types is handled appropriately, so they will
> always be leaked.
>
> I think there was some discussion about keeping track of
> request/response packets to map unimplemented and request failure
> responses back to the requesting API. I have no suggestions on that
> point, but there were some other discussions in the thread if your
> interested.
>
> Regards
> -steve
> _______________________________________________
> libssh2-devel http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libssh2-devel
I looked about adding a return code for libssh2_keepalive_config for the
following two errors:
1) authorization not yet completed
2) want reply is not supported by the library
I found that the prototype is:
void libssh2_keepalive_config(LIBSSH2_SESSION *session,
int want_reply,
unsigned interval);
As a result, making a change here would break the ABI in a
non-backward-compatible way (changing the void return to int...
How to proceed here?
Regards
-steve
_______________________________________________
libssh2-devel http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libssh2-devel
Received on 2012-03-06