Hello! On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:10:08PM +0300, Gena Makhomed wrote:
> On 24.09.2018 21:00, Maxim Dounin wrote: > > >> # HG changeset patch > >> # User Gena Makhomed <g...@csdoc.com> > >> # Date 1537810006 -10800 > >> # Mon Sep 24 20:26:46 2018 +0300 > >> # Node ID fc6c7e03edaad907d6a85afab009cb5c1fa43c56 > >> # Parent 17092295247709a533acca09f990c13337a24948 > >> Cache: status must be less then 599 in *_cache_valid directives. > >> > >> Previously, configurations with typo, for example > >> > >> fastcgi_cache_valid 200301 302 5m; > >> > >> successfully pass configuration test. Adding check for status > >> codes > 599, and such configurations are now properly rejected. > > > Have you seen such configurations in the real life, or it is > > something made-up while looking at the code? > > While looking at the code and your patch > http://hg.nginx.org/nginx/rev/7c614ef3c6ea Note that the commit in question refers to the real-life usage, "proxy_cache_valid 2xx 30s;" is an excerpt from a real config. > Did you see in the real life configurations > need for *_cache_valid status codes > 599 ? I've seen configurations where status codes > 599 were actually used in production, see here for an example: http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-ru/2016-June/058317.html On the other hand, I don't really think that such configurations are worth considering, they are clearly violation HTTP specification. I've committed your patch, thanks. -- Maxim Dounin http://mdounin.ru/ _______________________________________________ nginx-devel mailing list nginx-devel@nginx.org http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
