Re: bin/60512: sshd: hosts.deny and hosts.allow for NetBSD 10 not working for 11
"Martin Husemann via gnats" <[email protected]> Tue, 28 Jul 2026 10:25:02 +0000 (UTC)
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.bugs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The following reply was made to PR bin/60512; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Martin Husemann <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: Subject: Re: bin/60512: sshd: hosts.deny and hosts.allow for NetBSD 10 not working for 11 Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 12:20:15 +0200 On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 08:40:00AM +0000, [email protected] via gnats wrote: > >Fix: > If compatibility with NetBSD 10 and prior is important, stop checking > hosts_access(3) for __progname == "sshd-session". However, I'm not > 100% sure whether this is a safe option... If that change is not acceptable, this needs to be checked by postinstall(8). "postinstall check" could just fail with a message pointing the admin at what manual fix would work. Something like (totally untested): Index: postinstall.in =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/src/usr.sbin/postinstall/postinstall.in,v retrieving revision 1.72 diff -u -p -r1.72 postinstall.in --- postinstall.in 4 Jun 2025 06:01:59 -0000 1.72 +++ postinstall.in 28 Jul 2026 10:19:11 -0000 @@ -2780,6 +2780,36 @@ do_obsolete() } +additem sshdhosts "/etc/hosts.* using the right names for sshd" + +do_sshd_hosts_srrvname() +{ + local file="$1" + + if ! [ -r "$file" ]; then + return 0 + fi + + ${GREP} -q "sshd" "$file" + have_sshd=$? + ${GREP} -q "sshd-session" "$file" + have_sshd_session=$? + + if ${GREP} -q "sshd" "$file" && ! ${GREP} -q "sshd-session" "$file" then + msg "sshd found in $file, but no sshd-session" + msg "consider copying the former to the latter" + return 1 + fi + + return 0 +} + +do_sshdhosts_allow() +{ + do_sshd_hosts_srrvname "/etc/hosts.allow" + do_sshd_hosts_srrvname "/etc/hosts.deny" +} + # # end of items # ------------ Martin