You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com> on 1997/05/10 07:33:06 UTC
incorrect Allow: header?
The below Allow header doesn't look right to me. I have this
suspicion that this or something similar has come up before, but
can't see it...
marcs@alive:~$ telnet alive 80
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to alive.znep.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
POST /server-status/ HTTP/1.1
Host: alive
HTTP/1.1 501 Method Not Implemented
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 05:31:23 GMT
Server: Apache/1.2b11-dev
Allow: TRACE
Connection: close
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html
9e
<HTML><HEAD>
<TITLE>501 Method Not Implemented</TITLE>
</HEAD><BODY>
<H1>Method Not Implemented</H1>
POST to /server-status/ not supported.<P>
</BODY></HTML>
0
Am I crazy?
Re: incorrect Allow: header?
Posted by Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>.
1.2b4 and b7 probably can produce garbage for OPTIONS, but b9 should be
ok... oh wait, b9-dev. I haven't checked when the r->allowed == 0 test
went in, but it was somewhere around there. This was a bug I noticed
while testing rfc2068-compliance and forcing TRACE when no options were
otherwise set was Roy's suggestion. (Because Allow: requires at least one
option to be present.)
The 2+ is just to avoid the leading ", ".
Dean
On 12 May 1997, James H. Cloos, Jr. wrote:
> I tried this on three of our servers, 1.2b4-dev (19961228140010
> snapshot), 1.2b7 and 1.2b9-dev (19970422130013 snapshot). All give
> what looks like the same corruption as Marc.
>
> The value of the Allow header varies each time, but it looks like a
> pointer pointing to a random location in vm.
>
> Interesting point: commenting out the
>
> <Location /server-status>
> SetHandler server-status
> </Location>
>
> makes it work. allow is set to `GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, TRACE' and the
> reply is a 405 Method Not Allowed, rather than the 501 one get's
> otherwise.
>
> I note that make_allow() in http_protocol.c returns "TRACE" if
> r->allowed=0 and returns 2+pstrcat(r->pool, ... NULL) otherwise.
>
> Why return 2+ the output of pstrcat() vs just "TRACE"?
>
> -JimC
> --
> James H. Cloos, Jr. <URL:http://www.jhcloos.com/>
> Senior Engineer cloos@jhcloos.com, cloos@io.com
> IOCOM Ltd. LPF,Usenix,SAGE,ISOC,ACLU
>
Re: incorrect Allow: header?
Posted by .
I tried this on three of our servers, 1.2b4-dev (19961228140010
snapshot), 1.2b7 and 1.2b9-dev (19970422130013 snapshot). All give
what looks like the same corruption as Marc.
The value of the Allow header varies each time, but it looks like a
pointer pointing to a random location in vm.
Interesting point: commenting out the
<Location /server-status>
SetHandler server-status
</Location>
makes it work. allow is set to `GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, TRACE' and the
reply is a 405 Method Not Allowed, rather than the 501 one get's
otherwise.
I note that make_allow() in http_protocol.c returns "TRACE" if
r->allowed=0 and returns 2+pstrcat(r->pool, ... NULL) otherwise.
Why return 2+ the output of pstrcat() vs just "TRACE"?
-JimC
--
James H. Cloos, Jr. <URL:http://www.jhcloos.com/>
Senior Engineer cloos@jhcloos.com, cloos@io.com
IOCOM Ltd. LPF,Usenix,SAGE,ISOC,ACLU