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

Puma sends empty response bodies even when low-level handler is specified #2341

Closed
cjlarose opened this issue Aug 18, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #2731
Closed

Puma sends empty response bodies even when low-level handler is specified #2341

cjlarose opened this issue Aug 18, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #2731
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@cjlarose
Copy link
Member

@cjlarose cjlarose commented Aug 18, 2020

Describe the bug

Puma's README describes the lowlevel_error_handler as a way to specify how Puma should react in error conditions outside of the context of your application. Specifically, the docs show that you can return a Rack response with the expectation that Puma will write that response to the client socket.

In practice, though, Puma only writes that response in one particular kind of low-level error, server.rb:737. There are around six other places where the lowlevel_error_handler is invoked, but the return value is just discarded. In these cases, Puma writes the HTTP status line itself to the socket and closes it, without writing headers or a response body.

Since the lowlevel_error_handler is invoked in these cases, it's still better than nothing since application developers can still be notified of errors happening if they're reporting the error to their error collection system. But Puma offers no way to customize the response code, response headers, or response body in these cases. Clients just get blank responses.

Puma config:

lowlevel_error_handler do |e|
  puts "lowlevel_error_handler called"
  [500, {}, ["An error has occurred, and engineers have been informed. Please reload the page. If you continue to have problems, contact support@example.com\n"]]
end

Expected behavior

Puma writes the Rack response specified in the return value of the lowlevel_error_handler in every case that it's invoked.

Desktop (please complete the following information):

  • OS: MacOS, Linux
  • Puma Version: 4.3.5
@cjlarose cjlarose self-assigned this Jan 4, 2021
@dentarg
Copy link
Member

@dentarg dentarg commented Sep 28, 2021

@cjlarose did you start on this? would be useful to be able to rescue Puma::HttpParserErrors IMHO and not have Puma log them (the requests are most often abuse)

@cjlarose
Copy link
Member Author

@cjlarose cjlarose commented Sep 28, 2021

Haven't started on this myself. I think when I wrote it up originally, my team was actually finding that puma was giving 5xx error responses to some machine clients (other services in our system), but our error tracker didn't have anything relevant. I think it was related to a problem with phased restarts.

What I want is to at least give the option to application developers to handle the error and respond with their own custom error response if they want. Right now, there a few places where application developers can't even hook into the errors and know that they're happening.

I agree it's normally misbehaving HTTP clients that causes these kinds of errors, but in some cases we've found that legitimate users can run into these problems and it'd be nice to be able to report them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants