From: macournoyer <macournoyer@gmail.com>
To: Rack Development <rack-devel@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: PATH_INFO spec (with regard to ";")
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:04:53 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <27dd9d1d-9cba-4a0a-b74d-0f33a8c04df2@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091210223037.GB22867@dcvr.yhbt.net>
"not completely kosher" as in security issue? Should I revert this
change in Thin?
On Dec 10, 5:30 pm, Eric Wong <normalper...@yhbt.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been notified privately that my changes for PATH_INFO in Unicorn
> 0.95.2 (which also got into Thin) may not be completely kosher, but I'm
> also asking for the Rack team to clarify PATH_INFO for HTTP parser
> implementers.
>
> Upon further reading (and also of the
> related-but-not-necessarily-true-for-Rack RFC 3875 section 4.1.5),
> I came across this:
>
> Unlike a URI path, the PATH_INFO is not URL-encoded, and cannot
> contain path-segment parameters.
>
> First off, Rack already directly contradicts the "the PATH_INFO is not
> URL-encoded" part, so Unicorn conforms to Rack specs over RFC 3875.
>
> *But* Rack does not address the "cannot contain path-segment parameters"
> part at all. So I (and probably a few other people) would like
> clarification on how to handle PATH_INFO when it comes to ";"
>
> Things to keep in mind:
>
> * URI.parse keeps ";" in URI::HTTP#path
> This point may not be relevant to us, as PATH_INFO and
> URI::HTTP#path should not necessarily be treated as equals
>
> * WEBrick keeps ";" in PATH_INFO
>
> * PEP333 (which Rack is based on) does not go into this level of
> detail regarding PATH_INFO and path segments
>
> * PATH_INFO in Rack appears to be based on CGI/1.1 (RFC 3875)
>
> * Again, Rack already contradicts the URL encoding rules of RFC 3875
> for PATH_INFO, so there is precedence for Rack contradicting more
> of RFC 3875...
>
> * Rack::Request#full_path only looks at PATH_INFO + QUERY_STRING,
> this means many Rack applications may never see the ";" parts
> if Thin and Unicorn revert to old behavior.
>
> * Rack does not require REQUEST_URI, this is an extension Unicorn
> and Thin both carried over from Mongrel.
>
> * None of the official rack/rack-contrib middleware use REQUEST_URI
>
> Of course, in the grand scheme of things, hardly anybody uses ";" in
> paths. Yay for rare corner cases making our lives difficult.
>
> --
> Eric Wong
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-13 20:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-10 22:30 PATH_INFO spec (with regard to ";") Eric Wong
2009-12-11 0:03 ` James Tucker
2009-12-11 0:19 ` Iñaki Baz Castillo
2009-12-13 13:41 ` James Tucker
2009-12-13 15:15 ` Iñaki Baz Castillo
2009-12-14 0:44 ` Iñaki Baz Castillo
2009-12-14 11:08 ` James Tucker
2009-12-14 18:51 ` Eric Wong
2009-12-14 20:50 ` Iñaki Baz Castillo
2009-12-13 20:04 ` macournoyer [this message]
2009-12-13 20:49 ` Eric Wong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://groups.google.com/group/rack-devel
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=27dd9d1d-9cba-4a0a-b74d-0f33a8c04df2@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com \
--to=rack-devel@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).