https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1818
--- Comment #22 from Simon Tatham <[email protected]> --- Created attachment 2431 --> https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/attachment.cgi?id=2431&action=edit improved fix handling both client and server This issue has come up again recently and is currently under discussion on ietf-ssh. The general consensus seems to be that RFC 4254 has an ambiguity in it and that we should issue a clarification saying that responses to any outstanding or future channel requests should be implied by CHANNEL_CLOSE, and hence no actual reply messages should be sent after sending CHANNEL_CLOSE. OpenSSH is the only implementation I know of which does not do this (and PuTTY's window size tuning mechanism does cause us to notice...), so could I request higher priority on fixing it, please? I've attached a patch that I think is right. (I notice that I've attached a patch before, but it only dealt with the server side; this does the same thing on the client side too. I've only been able to test the server-side fix, but the client-side fix matches it as far as I can see so it should be right.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug. _______________________________________________ openssh-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-bugs
