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 54D391FF15C for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:02:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E05B65809; Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:02:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:01:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Christoph Heiss References: <20241206132455.145355-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Daniel Kral In-Reply-To: X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.005 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH installer] auto: allow a binary executable as the first boot executable 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 Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 12/9/24 10:57, Christoph Heiss wrote: > Why mandate the `Content-Length` header tho? For HTTP/1.1, it is only > marked SHOULD [0] and for HTTP2, it is actually completely optional [1]. > > I've just tested it w/ and w/o the patch, both work just fine if no > `Content-Length` header is sent back. Thanks for the review and cross checking this! On 12/9/24 10:57, Christoph Heiss wrote: > Since the `Content-Length` header isn't actually required, the message > is misleading. > > I wouldn't handle `UnexpectedEof` special here, instead just like any > other error - since it does not really indicate anything specific. I agree, I only chose to handle the error message since for binary response bodies this error was thrown when the library had no knowledge of the size of the body. I'll send a v2 without handling this error. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel