The caller of new_connection has relinquished ownership of the
SockAddr it passes in. So the receiver of that SockAddr must remember
to free it, or else we leak memory.
(Additionally, this means SshProxy will be able to remember the
address during its run, e.g. to use in calls to its Plug. But that's
not implemented yet.)
This is used to notify the Seat that some data has been cleared from
the backend's outgoing data buffer. In other words, it notifies the
Seat that it might be worth calling backend_sendbuffer() again.
We've never needed this before, because until now, Seats have always
been the 'main program' part of the application, meaning they were
also in control of the event loop. So they've been able to call
backend_sendbuffer() proactively, every time they go round the event
loop, instead of having to wait for a callback.
But now, the SSH proxy is the first example of a Seat without
privileged access to the event loop, so it has no way to find out that
the backend's sendbuffer has got smaller. And without that, it can't
pass that notification on to plug_sent, to unblock in turn whatever
the proxied connection might have been waiting to send.
In fact, before this commit, sshproxy.c never called plug_sent at all.
As a result, large data uploads over an SSH jump host would hang
forever as soon as the outgoing buffer filled up for the first time:
the main backend (to which sshproxy.c was acting as a Socket) would
carefully stop filling up the buffer, and then never receive the call
to plug_sent that would cause it to start again.
The new callback is ignored everywhere except in sshproxy.c. It might
be a good idea to remove backend_sendbuffer() entirely and convert all
previous uses of it into non-empty implementations of this callback,
so that we've only got one system; but for the moment, I haven't done
that.
This introduces a new entry to the radio-button list of proxy types,
in which the 'Proxy host' box is taken to be the name of an SSH server
or saved session. We make an entire subsidiary SSH connection to that
host, open a direct-tcpip channel through it, and use that as the
connection over which to run the primary network connection.
The result is basically the same as if you used a local proxy
subprocess, with a command along the lines of 'plink -batch %proxyhost
-nc %host:%port'. But it's all done in-process, by having an SshProxy
object implement the Socket trait to talk to the main connection, and
implement Seat and LogPolicy to talk to its subsidiary SSH backend.
All the refactoring in recent years has got us to the point where we
can do that without both SSH instances fighting over some global
variable or unique piece of infrastructure.
From an end user perspective, doing SSH proxying in-process like this
is a little bit easier to set up: it doesn't require you to bake the
full pathname of Plink into your saved session (or to have it on the
system PATH), and the SshProxy setup function automatically turns off
SSH features that would be inappropriate in this context, such as
additional port forwardings, or acting as a connection-sharing
upstream. And it has minor advantages like getting the Event Log for
the subsidiary connection interleaved in the main Event Log, as if it
were stderr output from a proxy subcommand, without having to
deliberately configure the subsidiary Plink into verbose mode.
However, this is an initial implementation only, and it doesn't yet
support the _big_ payoff for doing this in-process, which (I hope)
will be the ability to handle interactive prompts from the subsidiary
SSH connection via the same user interface as the primary one. For
example, you might need to answer two password prompts in succession,
or (the first time you use a session configured this way) confirm the
host keys for both proxy and destination SSH servers. Comments in the
new source file discuss some design thoughts on filling in this gap.
For the moment, if the proxy SSH connection encounters any situation
where an interactive prompt is needed, it will make the safe
assumption, the same way 'plink -batch' would do. So it's at least no
_worse_ than the existing technique of putting the proxy connection in
a subprocess.
