Vic,
Sorry I just realized I did not finish and sent the email in which I
suggested you to do so. Good thing it resolved your issue.
Regards,
Aris
Vic Lee a écrit :
Hi Aris,
It seems it's ok after I remove the ssh_set_blocking call. So probably
we don't need this patch for 0.4.
Thanks,
Vic
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 01:13 +0800, Vic Lee wrote:
Hi Aris,
It's the ssh_set_blocking() call in session.c. Maybe I shouldn't use it?
If I don't set blocking to false, will there be any impact on
channel_read_nonblocking?
I also attach a patch which works for me, though I am not very sure if I
am doing the right thing here.
Thanks,
Vic
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 22:22 +0100, Aris Adamantiadis wrote:
Hi Vic,
Could you try to get a backtrace at this place ?
I wonder why ssh_socket_nonblocking_flush is called. I put a breakpoint
on this function and was not able to trigger it using samplessh.
Could you also check session->blocking value ? normaly it's set to 1 in
ssh_new and I could not find any other place where it's changed.
Thanks,
Aris
Vic Lee a écrit :
Hi,
I found another bug in channel_write() which make it fail to tunnel an
xterm over SSH.
According to the description, channel_write() is a blocking write until
all data written or until error. However, in the following call
sequence:
channel_write -> packet_send -> packet_send2 -> packet_write ->
packet_flush (at packet.c:456), it uses a non-blocking call:
rc = packet_flush(session, 0);
which will almost always return SSH_AGAIN if large amount of data are
being flushed, and SSH_AGAIN will eventually returned by packet_send.
However, when channel_write calls packet_send it does not check for
SSH_AGAIN and simply think anything other than SSH_OK is an error.
This bug makes it impossible to tunnel an xterm (it's funny somehow
xterm has large data transmit). I temporarily change the packet_flush to
a blocking call fix the issue. But I think a right patch should be on
channel_write, checking SSH_AGAIN.
Your comments?
Thanks,
Vic
