Bug 687 - sshd segfaults under Solaris 2.6
Summary: sshd segfaults under Solaris 2.6
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Portable OpenSSH
Classification: Unclassified
Component: PAM support (show other bugs)
Version: 3.7.1p1
Hardware: UltraSPARC Solaris
: P2 critical
Assignee: OpenSSH Bugzilla mailing list
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-09-19 14:52 AEST by Martin Siegert
Modified: 2004-04-14 12:24 AEST (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments
truss output and gdb traces (10.71 KB, text/plain)
2003-09-19 14:58 AEST, Martin Siegert 		no flags Details
Make PAM_TTY "/dev/ssh" not "ssh" for PAM_TTY_KLUDGE (808 bytes, patch)
2003-11-08 21:37 AEDT, Darren Tucker 		no flags Details | Diff
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Martin Siegert 2003-09-19 14:52:31 AEST 
The segmentation fault seems to occur in auth-pam.c in sshpam_thread on the
sshpam_err = pam_authenticate(sshpam_handle, 0);
line. I attach truss output as well as gdb traces from the parent and the
child.
- the segfault only appears on Solaris 2.6, the code runs fine under Solaris 8
and 9 (same configuration)
- patch #422, http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647, is applied
(although this patch should be irrelevant in our configuration since we
do have pam enabled)
- the segfault occurs with and without privsep
- the segfault does not occur under version 3.6.1p2 (with the same
configuration) with the recent patches applied
Comment 1 Martin Siegert 2003-09-19 14:58:04 AEST 
Created attachment 431 [details]
truss output and gdb traces
Comment 2 Darren Tucker 2003-11-08 21:37:44 AEDT 
Created attachment 495 [details]
Make PAM_TTY "/dev/ssh" not "ssh" for PAM_TTY_KLUDGE

Please try this patch and see if it makes a difference for you.
Comment 3 Damien Miller 2003-11-08 21:54:45 AEDT 
Hasn't this been discussed before? I thought there was a Solaris patch that
fixes the underlying problem.
Comment 4 Darren Tucker 2003-11-08 22:02:41 AEDT 
Yes, but those were different bug reports and different Solaris versions.  I was
wondering if this one was related.
Comment 5 Darren Tucker 2004-01-24 18:43:04 AEDT 
No reply==closed bug
Comment 6 Damien Miller 2004-04-14 12:24:19 AEST 
Mass change of RESOLVED bugs to CLOSED