[PATCH] accept SOCKS request over the mux socket

[Ben Lindstrom]

On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:21 PM, Jim Knoble wrote:

> Circa 2009-03-11 10:27 dixit Ben Lindstrom:
>
> : I'm concerned that people will become confused since -M -S combo has
> : been resevered for multiple ssh terminal sessions over a single
> : tunnel.  I'd rather see it more clear like:
> :
> : ssh -D -M -S /tmp/mux 172.20.3.12 -N -f   if you want multiple  
> tunnels
> : + SOCK support
> : ssh -D -S /tmp/mux  .. if you just want SOCKS support instead of a  
> PORT
> :
> : Which means an error needs to be throw on
> :
> : ssh -Dxxx  -S xxxx
>
> The above means that you can't separate permissions for the mux socket
> and the SOCKS socket.
>
> Better to create a dedicated SOCKS socket, no?
>
>  ssh -D /tmp/ssh-socks-socket ...
>
> That is, '-D' may accept either an IP address or a filesystem path.
> Reserve '-S' for use with multiplexing sockets.  This way, one can:
>
>  ssh -D /tmp/ssh-socks-socket -M -S /tmp/ssh-mux-socket ...
>
> and allow more than one user to use the SOCKS connection while keeping
> the mux socket more private.
>
> This also makes the '-D' syntax consistent and sensible.
>

That works for me.   I just found the mutation and corruption of -M -S  
to be a bit dodgy when we already have a -D that is clearly tagged as  
being a socks4/5 server functionality flag.

- Ben