-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 227
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Introduce response header limits #453
Conversation
This is the first set of changes, next up is limiting the number of headers as outlined in the issue. (and of course tests) |
b937564
to
9c275e6
Compare
I'm not sure whether we want to rename the gorouter yaml property from |
f128f20
to
6fdf626
Compare
Note to the reviewer: I've split the changes into review-able commits focusing on one aspect each so it's easier to review the individual changes :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
requesting to review some naming consistency and code comments for clarification (alignment with existing comment density)
6fdf626
to
f4d4095
Compare
When counting they bytes sent by the client in the request line and headers, repeated header keys are not counted. This commit adjusts the logic to account for repeated keys.
f4d4095
to
d3b8890
Compare
Once the routing-release PR is ready as well I will merge both. |
Rename the config property in preparation for the new response header limit. The YAML property retains its name to stay compatible with any existing configurations.
Add a new property to configure the response header limit of the transport used to send requests to route services and backends. Resolves: cloudfoundry/routing-release#309
This commit adds support to limit the amount of request and response headers gorouter will accept and process. Resolves: cloudfoundry/routing-release#309
d3b8890
to
557b9c3
Compare
Summary
A request with too large response headers will now look like this:
Backward Compatibility
Breaking Change? No