Re: Could/Shouldn't check_header() allow folding?

2017-01-04 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:22 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> This would work for me (on the proxy side), too. >> The patch (attached) is a bit longer, but still reasonable IMHO. >> WDYT? > > Not

Re: Could/Shouldn't check_header() allow folding?

2017-01-04 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > This would work for me (on the proxy side), too. > The patch (attached) is a bit longer, but still reasonable IMHO. > WDYT? Not understanding if (!header->key) { continue; } - why success if there is a dead ':

Re: Could/Shouldn't check_header() allow folding?

2017-01-04 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:21 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> I'm using a (third-party/closed) module which replaces newlines in >> header values (like base64 encoded PEMs) with obs-fold. >> That's

Re: Could/Shouldn't check_header() allow folding?

2017-01-04 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 7:21 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> I'm using a (third-party/closed) module which replaces newlines in >> header values (like base64 encoded PEMs) with obs-fold. > > If we

Re: Could/Shouldn't check_header() allow folding?

2017-01-04 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > I'm using a (third-party/closed) module which replaces newlines in > header values (like base64 encoded PEMs) with obs-fold. > That's probably obsolete, but not forbidden per se... Actually, it is, c.f. 3.2.4 of RFC 7230

Could/Shouldn't check_header() allow folding?

2017-01-04 Thread Yann Ylavic
I'm using a (third-party/closed) module which replaces newlines in header values (like base64 encoded PEMs) with obs-fold. That's probably obsolete, but not forbidden per se... How about something like: Index: modules/http/http_filters.c