Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for SSH's env command to the server #136

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Add support for SSH's env command to the server #136

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@bpollack
Copy link
Contributor

@bpollack bpollack commented Feb 20, 2013

This commit adds support for the env command to the server, with a default implementation to reject all requests (which both preserves backwards compatibility, and is the safest default).

@ludoo
Copy link

@ludoo ludoo commented Sep 19, 2013

Wouldn't it make more sense for the default to return the server's environment variable value? If the client requests env LC_PAPER it usually expects to get back the user's LC_PAPER value on the server's env.

@charles-dyfis-net
Copy link

@charles-dyfis-net charles-dyfis-net commented Sep 19, 2013

@ludoo Opening a shell on the remote side and asking it to evaluate an environment variable, as you refer to, is different from telling SSH to set a remote environment variable. env requests are passed name/value pairs; there is no other reasonable thing they could be used to do, other than setting an environment variable on the remote side with the given value.

@ludoo
Copy link

@ludoo ludoo commented Sep 19, 2013

Right, it makes sense. :)

@bitprophet
Copy link
Member

@bitprophet bitprophet commented Sep 28, 2013

This looks like it's implementing section 6.4 of RFC-4254: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4254.txt . While I've not used it myself I presume this is what powers the SendEnv client option? :) Given it's in the RFC and it's real simple I'm happy to merge w/o doing a ton of rigorous testing.

bitprophet added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 28, 2013
@bitprophet
Copy link
Member

@bitprophet bitprophet commented Sep 28, 2013

Rebased/merged, thanks!

@bitprophet bitprophet closed this Sep 28, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants