From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83A881FF165 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:20:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 32CD2110C4; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:20:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4d7a8ece-96dd-4742-a0f4-011e54258d4c@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:19:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20250108084558.390324-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20250108084558.390324-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-GB, de-AT From: Thomas Lamprecht Autocrypt: addr=t.lamprecht@proxmox.com; keydata= xsFNBFsLjcYBEACsaQP6uTtw/xHTUCKF4VD4/Wfg7gGn47+OfCKJQAD+Oyb3HSBkjclopC5J uXsB1vVOfqVYE6PO8FlD2L5nxgT3SWkc6Ka634G/yGDU3ZC3C/7NcDVKhSBI5E0ww4Qj8s9w OQRloemb5LOBkJNEUshkWRTHHOmk6QqFB/qBPW2COpAx6oyxVUvBCgm/1S0dAZ9gfkvpqFSD 90B5j3bL6i9FIv3YGUCgz6Ue3f7u+HsEAew6TMtlt90XV3vT4M2IOuECG/pXwTy7NtmHaBQ7 UJBcwSOpDEweNob50+9B4KbnVn1ydx+K6UnEcGDvUWBkREccvuExvupYYYQ5dIhRFf3fkS4+ wMlyAFh8PQUgauod+vqs45FJaSgTqIALSBsEHKEs6IoTXtnnpbhu3p6XBin4hunwoBFiyYt6 YHLAM1yLfCyX510DFzX/Ze2hLqatqzY5Wa7NIXqYYelz7tXiuCLHP84+sV6JtEkeSUCuOiUY virj6nT/nJK8m0BzdR6FgGtNxp7RVXFRz/+mwijJVLpFsyG1i0Hmv2zTn3h2nyGK/I6yhFNt dX69y5hbo6LAsRjLUvZeHXpTU4TrpN/WiCjJblbj5um5eEr4yhcwhVmG102puTtuCECsDucZ jpKpUqzXlpLbzG/dp9dXFH3MivvfuaHrg3MtjXY1i+/Oxyp5iwARAQABzTNUaG9tYXMgTGFt cHJlY2h0IChBdXRoLTQpIDx0LmxhbXByZWNodEBwcm94bW94LmNvbT7CwY4EEwEIADgWIQQO R4qbEl/pah9K6VrTZCM6gDZWBgUCWwuNxgIbAwULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAK CRDTZCM6gDZWBm/jD/4+6JB2s67eaqoP6x9VGaXNGJPCscwzLuxDTCG90G9FYu29VcXtubH/ bPwsyBbNUQpqTm/s4XboU2qpS5ykCuTjqavrcP33tdkYfGcItj2xMipJ1i3TWvpikQVsX42R G64wovLs/dvpTYphRZkg5DwhgTmy3mRkmofFCTa+//MOcNOORltemp984tWjpR3bUJETNWpF sKGZHa3N4kCNxb7A+VMsJZ/1gN3jbQbQG7GkJtnHlWkw9rKCYqBtWrnrHa4UAvSa9M/XCIAB FThFGqZI1ojdVlv5gd6b/nWxfOPrLlSxbUo5FZ1i/ycj7/24nznW1V4ykG9iUld4uYUY86bB UGSjew1KYp9FmvKiwEoB+zxNnuEQfS7/Bj1X9nxizgweiHIyFsRqgogTvLh403QMSGNSoArk tqkorf1U+VhEncIn4H3KksJF0njZKfilrieOO7Vuot1xKr9QnYrZzJ7m7ZxJ/JfKGaRHXkE1 feMmrvZD1AtdUATZkoeQtTOpMu4r6IQRfSdwm/CkppZXfDe50DJxAMDWwfK2rr2bVkNg/yZI tKLBS0YgRTIynkvv0h8d9dIjiicw3RMeYXyqOnSWVva2r+tl+JBaenr8YTQw0zARrhC0mttu cIZGnVEvQuDwib57QLqMjQaC1gazKHvhA15H5MNxUhwm229UmdH3KM7BTQRbC43GARAAyTkR D6KRJ9Xa2fVMh+6f186q0M3ni+5tsaVhUiykxjsPgkuWXWW9MbLpYXkzX6h/RIEKlo2BGA95 QwG5+Ya2Bo3g7FGJHAkXY6loq7DgMp5/TVQ8phsSv3WxPTJLCBq6vNBamp5hda4cfXFUymsy HsJy4dtgkrPQ/bnsdFDCRUuhJHopnAzKHN8APXpKU6xV5e3GE4LwFsDhNHfH/m9+2yO/trcD txSFpyftbK2gaMERHgA8SKkzRhiwRTt9w5idOfpJVkYRsgvuSGZ0pcD4kLCOIFrer5xXudk6 NgJc36XkFRMnwqrL/bB4k6Pi2u5leyqcXSLyBgeHsZJxg6Lcr2LZ35+8RQGPOw9C0ItmRjtY ZpGKPlSxjxA1WHT2YlF9CEt3nx7c4C3thHHtqBra6BGPyW8rvtq4zRqZRLPmZ0kt/kiMPhTM 8wZAlObbATVrUMcZ/uNjRv2vU9O5aTAD9E5r1B0dlqKgxyoImUWB0JgpILADaT3VybDd3C8X s6Jt8MytUP+1cEWt9VKo4vY4Jh5vwrJUDLJvzpN+TsYCZPNVj18+jf9uGRaoK6W++DdMAr5l gQiwsNgf9372dbMI7pt2gnT5/YdG+ZHnIIlXC6OUonA1Ro/Itg90Q7iQySnKKkqqnWVc+qO9 GJbzcGykxD6EQtCSlurt3/5IXTA7t6sAEQEAAcLBdgQYAQgAIBYhBA5HipsSX+lqH0rpWtNk IzqANlYGBQJbC43GAhsMAAoJENNkIzqANlYGD1sP/ikKgHgcspEKqDED9gQrTBvipH85si0j /Jwu/tBtnYjLgKLh2cjv1JkgYYjb3DyZa1pLsIv6rGnPX9bH9IN03nqirC/Q1Y1lnbNTynPk IflgvsJjoTNZjgu1wUdQlBgL/JhUp1sIYID11jZphgzfDgp/E6ve/8xE2HMAnf4zAfJaKgD0 F+fL1DlcdYUditAiYEuN40Ns/abKs8I1MYx7Yglu3RzJfBzV4t86DAR+OvuF9v188WrFwXCS RSf4DmJ8tntyNej+DVGUnmKHupLQJO7uqCKB/1HLlMKc5G3GLoGqJliHjUHUAXNzinlpE2Vj C78pxpwxRNg2ilE3AhPoAXrY5qED5PLE9sLnmQ9AzRcMMJUXjTNEDxEYbF55SdGBHHOAcZtA kEQKub86e+GHA+Z8oXQSGeSGOkqHi7zfgW1UexddTvaRwE6AyZ6FxTApm8wq8NT2cryWPWTF BDSGB3ujWHMM8ERRYJPcBSjTvt0GcEqnd+OSGgxTkGOdufn51oz82zfpVo1t+J/FNz6MRMcg 8nEC+uKvgzH1nujxJ5pRCBOquFZaGn/p71Yr0oVitkttLKblFsqwa+10Lt6HBxm+2+VLp4Ja 0WZNncZciz3V3cuArpan/ZhhyiWYV5FD0pOXPCJIx7WS9PTtxiv0AOS4ScWEUmBxyhFeOpYa DrEx In-Reply-To: <20250108084558.390324-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.045 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [ietf.org, anyevent.pm] 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" 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 > --- > 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. > 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