Comment 23 for bug 483928

(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #19)
>
>> The format of this patch is the same as before. If you are using the
>> current GNU `patch', you should be able to `patch [-p0] < patch' in the
>> "openssh-5.8p1" parent directory. If your in the "openssh-5.8p1"
>> directory itself, you should be able to `patch -p1 <patch'.
>
>Oh, I know about -p0 vs. -p1 and such. The problem is that the patch,
>as up currently, looks for foo.c.orig instead of foo.c. In other words,
>
> --- dir/foo.c.orig
> +++ dir/foo.c.orig (WRONG)
>
> --- dir/foo.c.orig
> +++ dir/foo.c (CORRECT)

Hmmm, but the patch doesn't have two consecutive lines with ".orig" as you describe above. From observation, the first three lines for each modified file are similar to

diff -u openssh-5.8p1/kex.c.orig openssh-5.8p1/kex.c
--- openssh-5.8p1/kex.c.orig 2010-09-24 08:11:14.000000000 -0400
+++ openssh-5.8p1/kex.c 2011-02-11 18:14:03.396688000 -0500

Are you using the GNU patch? The attached patch text works for me with no changes whatsoever. Or to ask it somewhat differently, does your `patch' process WRONG even though the text is actually CORRECT? Is it possible that your`patch' is not ignoring the "diff" line?

>> I think that, if/when this patch is actually submitted to the OpenSSH
>> folks, I'll let the mavins there decide whether or not to have a '-L'
>> option.
>
> Fair enough, though I think there might be more value in just
> (unconditionally) printing a tally at the end of how many valid hosts
> were found, how many had no host algs, etc. (a bit like what "md5sum
> -c" does when it encounters errors).

Actually, after I had sent the previous, I thought I should have added that the described approach is a cop out on my part (;-}).

>> To satisfy my curiosity, did you observe any missing hosts when you use
>> the '-L' option (and it actually completes)?
>
> Ah, I forgot to report on this; my bad!
>
> I do see a few hosts in the input list that are not mentioned anywhere
> in the stderr output. These appear to be strictly "alias" IP addresses,
> e.g. for an input line of
>
> 10.0.0.1,10.0.0.2,10.0.0.3 host.example.com,10.0.0.1,10.0.0.2,...
> ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
> these
>
> This is the correct behavior, I take it?

I submit hosts, one per line, as the data to ssh-keyscan and am not familiar with the "alias" format. In fact, your comments clarified it somewhat for me. If you meant that "10.0.0.1" was seen in stderr and the others weren't, I believe that this is the "correct" behavior if ssh-keyscan had success with "10.0.0.1". I think the code tells me that it stops looking after the first IP/host with which it has success.