From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D04191FF16F
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 08:37:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 47C9B199DF;
Thu, 16 Jan 2025 08:37:00 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <146d00c4-8e99-42d0-ba4c-5663cce96c7f@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 08:36:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250108084558.390324-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<20250108084558.390324-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<4d7a8ece-96dd-4742-a0f4-011e54258d4c@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <4d7a8ece-96dd-4742-a0f4-011e54258d4c@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.016 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH http-server 2/2] use
HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR were appropriate instead of '501'
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 1/15/25 17:19, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 08.01.25 um 09:45 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>> The http status code 501 is meant to be 'Not Implemented'[0] but that
>> clearly does not fit here as the default error when we encounter a
>> problem during handling an api request or upload.
>
> Not sure about the clearly; 501 is not a 404 like error but one where
> some functionality is not implemented.
>
> So if the error stems from an side effect of the actual code handling
> the request switching over to 500 seems OK, but if it's a error from
> some header flag not being supported then 501 seems alright to me,
> I looked into a few hunks inline with more comments.
>
>>
>> So instead use '500' (HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR) which we already use
>> in other places where it fits.
>>
>> 0: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9110#name-501-not-implemented
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> src/PVE/APIServer/AnyEvent.pm | 16 ++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/APIServer/AnyEvent.pm b/src/PVE/APIServer/AnyEvent.pm
>> index bd76488..3b96d2a 100644
>> --- a/src/PVE/APIServer/AnyEvent.pm
>> +++ b/src/PVE/APIServer/AnyEvent.pm
>> @@ -504,7 +504,7 @@ sub send_file_start {
>> $self->response($reqstate, $resp, $mtime, $nocomp);
>> };
>> if (my $err = $@) {
>> - $self->error($reqstate, 501, $err);
>> + $self->error($reqstate, HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, $err);
>> }
>> };
>>
>> @@ -1020,7 +1020,7 @@ sub handle_api2_request {
>> $self->response($reqstate, $resp, undef, $nocomp, $delay);
>> };
>> if (my $err = $@) {
>> - $self->error($reqstate, 501, $err);
>> + $self->error($reqstate, HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, $err);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1214,7 +1214,7 @@ sub handle_request {
>> die "no such file '$path'\n";
>> };
>> if (my $err = $@) {
>> - $self->error($reqstate, 501, $err);
>> + $self->error($reqstate, HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, $err);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1304,7 +1304,7 @@ sub file_upload_multipart {
>> };
>> if (my $err = $@) {
>> syslog('err', $err);
>> - $self->error($reqstate, 501, $err);
>> + $self->error($reqstate, HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, $err);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1402,10 +1402,10 @@ sub process_header {
>> my $te = $request->header('Transfer-Encoding');
>> if ($te && lc($te) eq 'chunked') {
>> # Handle chunked transfer encoding
>> - $self->error($reqstate, 501, "chunked transfer encoding not supported");
>> + $self->error($reqstate, HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, "chunked transfer encoding not supported");
>> return 0;
>> } elsif ($te) {
>> - $self->error($reqstate, 501, "Unknown transfer encoding '$te'");
>> + $self->error($reqstate, HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, "Unknown transfer encoding '$te'");
>
> both above seem to fulfill the "server does not support the functionality
> required to fulfill the request" part of the 501 Not implemented error
> though?
>
> While it follows "This is the appropriate response when the server does not
> recognize the request method and is not capable of supporting it for any
> resource", this rather reads as example to me, but not deep into the HTTP
> lore as of now, just not 100$ sure this counts as unexpected condition, as
> I can trigger it quite expectedly.
forgot that i talked with fabian off-list about this too, and
we said that the first 4 instances (where we simply pass through the error)
is fine, but for the last 4 (like you mentioned here) we should keep the 501
since we actually have not implemented some part of the request
I misunderstood the 501 error at first, thinking it's about the path of the request only,
but it's actually for any part of the request, so here the 'transfer-encoding' above
as well as the 'unexpected content' and 'data too large' below would qualify for a 501 error
IMO (though I'm fine with either of those be a 500 too)
So if it's fine with you, I'd send a new version with just the first 4 occurrences replaced.
>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1574,7 +1574,7 @@ sub authenticate_and_handle_request {
>> if ($len) {
>>
>> if (!($method eq 'PUT' || $method eq 'POST')) {
>> - $self->error($reqstate, 501, "Unexpected content for method '$method'");
>> + $self->error($reqstate, HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, "Unexpected content for method '$method'");
>
> not 100% sure here either, one could support a body for GET, but tbh. I'd
> be fine with 500 here, it's even less of a a clear cut.
>
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1624,7 +1624,7 @@ sub authenticate_and_handle_request {
>> }
>>
>> if ($len > $limit_max_post) {
>> - $self->error($reqstate, 501, "for data too large");
>> + $self->error($reqstate, HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, "for data too large");
>
> 501 could be OK here, we explicitly do not implement handling bigger
> data.
>
>> return;
>> }
>>
>
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel