Subject: Re: Bug in channel.c/channel_request_pty_size?

Re: Bug in channel.c/channel_request_pty_size?

From: Daniel Stenberg <>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 23:37:22 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Steve Legg wrote:

> Am I wrong, and there is actually a way for reqPTY_state to be set back to
> idle? Or is this a real bug?

It looks like a real bug to me!

> (it looks to me like the code has been written with asynchrony in mind, but
> never actually finished - the reqPTY_state code appears to be mostly
> redundant).

Not entirely redundant since it avoids doing all that initing of the packet
during situations when the transport layer returns LIBSSH2_ERROR_EAGAIN.

How about fixing this bug with a patch like the attached?



Received on 2010-12-31