Websocket upgrade directive implementation #1571
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ttaym
force-pushed
the
am-755-websocket-upgrade-directive
branch
2 times, most recently
from
482d49d to
8d93200
Compare
krizhanovsky
reviewed
Mar 1, 2022
ttaym
force-pushed
the
am-755-websocket-upgrade-directive
branch
from
ebda32a to
4734569
Compare
Contributes to #755 Signed-off-by: Aleksey Mikhaylov <[email protected]>
ttaym
force-pushed
the
am-755-websocket-upgrade-directive
branch
from
9b5c4aa to
198aadf
Compare
krizhanovsky
approved these changes
Mar 13, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Contributes to #755
Considerations.
It seems that to confrom to RFC7230#section-6.6 we have to be prepared to process requests with
Connection: upgradeandExpect: 100-continueset at the same time and respond with 100 before going further with the request. But for websocket upgrade case it is obscure and rare (if ever) seen. For now implemented logic does not have that.It seems that standard does not explicitly forbid
Upgradeheader in request trailer field. But for now implementation does not support that scenario.Tempesta FW MUST block requests with
Upgradeheader but withoutupgradeoption inConnectionheader. Tempesta FW MUST ignoreUpgradeheader for HTTP version less thenHTTP/1.1. See RFC7230#section-6.1:Signed-off-by: Aleksey Mikhaylov [email protected]