Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

valid HTTP responses without a reason phrase considered malformed #1931

Closed
malaysf opened this issue Jan 8, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

valid HTTP responses without a reason phrase considered malformed #1931

malaysf opened this issue Jan 8, 2020 · 4 comments
Labels
feature-request This issue requests a feature. p2 This is a standard priority issue

Comments

@malaysf
Copy link

malaysf commented Jan 8, 2020

awsrequest.py is too restrictive in parsing 100 Continue responses and rejects valid responses that do not have a reason phrase.

The HTTP 1.1 RFC does not require the status line to contain a reason phrase, and defines the line as follows:

Status-Line = HTTP-Version SP Status-Code SP Reason-Phrase CRLF
Reason-Phrase  = *<TEXT, excluding CR, LF>

awsrequest.py will reject valid responses such as: HTTP/1.1 100 \r\n\r\n or HTTP/1.1 500 \r\n\r\n

I will post a PR for this issue in a few minutes.

@swetashre
Copy link
Contributor

@malaysf - Thank you for the post. Marking this as enhancement. It looks like the PR is approved and there is a comment in it. Let's track the progress of this issue under the linked PR.

@swetashre swetashre added the enhancement This issue requests an improvement to a current feature. label Jan 13, 2020
@github-actions
Copy link

Greetings! It looks like this issue hasn’t been active in longer than one year. We encourage you to check if this is still an issue in the latest release. Because it has been longer than one year since the last update on this, and in the absence of more information, we will be closing this issue soon. If you find that this is still a problem, please feel free to provide a comment to prevent automatic closure, or if the issue is already closed, please feel free to reopen it.

@tim-finnigan tim-finnigan reopened this May 8, 2024
@tim-finnigan tim-finnigan added feature-request This issue requests a feature. needs-review This issue or pull request needs review from a core team member. p2 This is a standard priority issue and removed enhancement This issue requests an improvement to a current feature. closed-for-staleness labels May 8, 2024
@tim-finnigan
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for your patience here. I reopened this issue because it auto-closed and another issue (#3149) was recently opened asking for an update. The reason why this issue and the corresponding PR (#1932) will not be prioritized is because the requested behavior is outside of the standard behavior of Amazon S3.

@tim-finnigan tim-finnigan removed the needs-review This issue or pull request needs review from a core team member. label May 8, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 8, 2024

This issue is now closed. Comments on closed issues are hard for our team to see.
If you need more assistance, please open a new issue that references this one.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature-request This issue requests a feature. p2 This is a standard priority issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants