[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100927202013.GA12373@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:20:13 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TCP: orphans broken by RFC 2525 #2.17
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 01:08:13PM -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >Hi Herbert,
> >
> >On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 04:02:22PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> >>Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Looking more closely, I noticed that in traces showing the issue,
> >>>the client was sending an additional CRLF after the data in a
> >>>separate packet (permitted eventhough not recommended).
> >>
> >>Where is this permitted? RFC2616 says:
> >>
> >> Certain buggy HTTP/1.0 client implementations generate
> >> extra CRLF's after a POST request. To restate what is
> >> explicitly forbidden by the BNF, an HTTP/1.1 client MUST
> >> NOT preface or follow a request with an extra CRLF.
> >
> >
> >And the paragraph just before says :
> >
> > In the interest of robustness, servers SHOULD ignore any empty
> > line(s) received where a Request-Line is expected. In other words, if
> > the server is reading the protocol stream at the beginning of a
> > message and receives a CRLF first, it should ignore the CRLF.
>
> It is the HTTP server code being addressed there, not the underlying TCP
> stack is it not?
yes, precisely.
regards,
Willy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists