Hi,

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 02:06:54AM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> Hi Lokesh.
> 
> On 2024-04-27 (Sa.) 01:41, Lokesh Jindal wrote:
> > Hey folks
> > 
> > I have found that there is no operator "del-cookie" in HAProxy to delete
> > cookies from the request. (HAProxy does support the operator
> > "del-header").
> > 
> > Can you explain why such an operator is not supported? Is it due to
> > complexity? Due to performance? It will be great if you can share
> > details behind this design choice.
> 
> Well I'm pretty sure because nobody have added this feature into HAProxy.
> You are welcome to send a patch which add this feature.
> 
> Maybe you could add "delete" into the
> https://docs.haproxy.org/2.9/configuration.html#4.2-cookie function.
> 
> Please take a look into
> https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING file if you plan
> to contribute.
> 
> > We have use cases where we want to delete cookies from the request. Not
> > having this support in HAProxy also makes me question if one should be
> > deleting request cookies in the reverse proxy layer.
> 
> Maybe you can use some of the "*-header" functions to remove the cookie as
> shown in the example in
> https://docs.haproxy.org/2.9/configuration.html#4.4-replace-header

Lukas had already provided some fairly complete info on how to do it here:

   https://discourse.haproxy.org/t/best-way-to-delete-a-cookie/3184

Since then we've got the "replace-value" action that does the job for
comma-delimited values, but sadly there's still this bogus syntax in the
Cookie header where a semi-colon is used as the delimiter so replace-value
cannot be used there.

Requests for cookie removal are very rare but have always been present.
I'm really wondering if we should implement a specific action for this
instead of relying on replace-header rules. If adding 2-3 rules for
these rare cases is not considered something too painful to maintain,
I'd prefer it remains that way. If it comes at a cost (e.g. regex match)
then maybe we'll need to think about it for 3.1.

Regards,
Willy

Reply via email to