[Bug 91] timeout patches

[Nicolas Williams]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 10:53:22PM +1100, bugzilla-daemon at mindrot.org wrote:
> http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From markus at openbsd.org  2002-01-31 22:53 -------
> please try to have one feature per patch.
> 
> 1. as to protocolkeepalive: isn't this what tcp-keepalives are for?

TCP keepalives are unreliable; the TCP keepalive timer usually cannot be
set per-socket and cannot be negotiated.

> 2. why use sigaction? sshd does a similar thing, but just uses alarm()

Why use SIGALARM? Why not use the select() timeout instead?

> 3. why not wrap exchange_indentification into alarm, like sshd does?
> 4. not all ssh1 implementations will accept your ignore message

I don't remember SSHv2 having a keepalive message. Maybe it should.

Cheers,

Nico
--
-DISCLAIMER: an automatically appended disclaimer may follow. By posting-
-to a public e-mail mailing list I hereby grant permission to distribute-
-and copy this message.-

Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com

This message contains confidential information and is intended only 
for the individual named.  If you are not the named addressee you 
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please 
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this 
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free 
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.  The sender therefore 
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents 
of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.  If 
verification is required please request a hard-copy version.  This 
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be 
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or 
related financial instruments.