From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDF357AE5B
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  6 Jul 2022 18:09:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D43D5D915
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  6 Jul 2022 18:09:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  6 Jul 2022 18:09:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 41A1143C5F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  6 Jul 2022 18:09:09 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <f309d69c-584a-4f7e-8fc7-017547a0938e@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 18:09:07 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20220513134900.440420-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
 <20220513134900.440420-2-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
From: Daniel Tschlatscher <d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220513134900.440420-2-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.102 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 http-server 2/2] AnyEvent: Fix #3990 -
 make small files uploadable
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 16:09:10 -0000

The GUI works without problems. Files of arbitrary size can be
uploaded without issues.
Apart from that, I mostly focused on usage via the API using curl and
Postman.


What worked as expected:
* Upload in the GUI
  Tested by uploading files of sizes:
  0B, 1kB, 8kB, 15kB (did not work before), 16kB, 32kB, 1MB, 1GB, 10GB
* Uploading a 8kB and a 32kB file with and without the corresponding
  checksums.
* Unknown values for the "metadata" in the body (e.g. Content-
  Disposition, filename, ...) fail expectedly
* Unmatching file extensions (extension of the file passed in phase 0
  and file extension assigned in the filename) fail expectedly

All errors above return HTTP status 501 ("Not implemented") which I
think is rather confusing, even if they include a descriptive error
message.
I'd wager that it would be better to differentiate between malformed
multi-form data and internal server errors, and return 400 for incorrect
user inputs. This makes it much easier for anyone (that is not a
browser) to interface with this part of the API.


Below problems seem to originate in file_upload_multipart() or at least
reach this part of the code (and could therefore probably improve error
status communication for the user here):
* Using an unknown value for the "Content-Type" Http-Header or
  assigning boundary differently to what is used in the body
=> Connection dies with error "empty reply from server"

* Adding an unknown "metadata" field or changing an existing one (e.g.
  filename to fielname)
=> results in the same error as above

* Malforming the boundary for phase 1 (the second one in the http body)
  (Seems this is parsed incorrectly?)
=> 501 wrong field `name` for file upload, expected `filename` - abort
   upload

* Malforming the very last boundary
=> Connection dies, "empty reply from server".
   Syslog error: "problem with client [...] Connection timed out"


I am not quite sure how much precedence fixing the errors above should
have, as even most API users will probably never encounter them.
However, I feel like that at the very least the basic error message
should be revised to no longer return 501 and to include a more
descriptive error message than just "upload failed".

With no major problems and depending on how important the (edge-)cases
above are, consider this patch

Tested-by: Daniel Tschlatscher <d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com>