On 06/04/18 05:19, Damien Miller wrote: > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, Alex Wilson wrote >> >> The format of that message doesn't change though -- it's always a single >> byte (so you don't need that information in the function that actually >> parses the message). With this proposal that is no longer the case. I >> mean, maybe it's a pointless concern and things are fine as proposed. I >> wrote my client implementation to not have any of that state there for >> parsing messages to make it easier to test and fuzz. I know other >> implmentations don't necessarily do the same thing. > > ok, so what behaviour would you prefer? > > AFAIK the only way to be completely unambiguous would be to echo the > full extension name in the reply, which seems unnecessarily verbose. > I would be fine with echoing the full name of the extension, personally. An extra 20-30 bytes or so over AF_UNIX is not far off being free performance-wise on modern systems. If you think that's a non-starter though, then maybe a next-best option could be an "extension reply" message? That way there's no ambiguity about the structure of the "success" message at least. As I said, though, do feel free to tell me you think it's not worth the effort and I should stop whinging. I'll still use the extension mechanism as proposed. :) _______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
