Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:116727
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5d2b1d8f-9b7a-558f-8750-cc97b3ad0589@gmx.de> <CA+p1FaaAb4Oa2tX8tgnnSERobwBa0MTU42QoJ4v6x-i3JB2yyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKxcST_Xv4QFFh4VfDE9oD9C1gi8r+UQWwRbXoxiXMMA3C-YJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKxcST_Xv4QFFh4VfDE9oD9C1gi8r+UQWwRbXoxiXMMA3C-YJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:40:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJmy8YFLfwWdPcuC3svguc1XQV781jjZBS9=YHFOSN=bO2uTwA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005b651105d3d20f34"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] header() allows arbitrary status codes
From: divinity76@gmail.com (Hans Henrik Bergan)

--0000000000005b651105d3d20f34
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

sometime in the future HTTP 6xx will be defined, and we'll have to add a
big warning to the header()/http_respons_code() pages like
"Warning: HTTP 6.x.x is only supported in PHP >= x.x.x and PHP <=8.1.x",
and library developers have to add fugly code like
`if(PHP_VERSION_MAJOR >= X || (PHP_VERSION_MAJOR <=8 && PHP_VERSION_MINOR
<= 1){http_response_code(6xx);}else{
trigger_error("your php version cannot use http 6xx");
}

i'd prefer if we didn't restrict the header ranges

On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 at 13:47, Paul Dragoonis <dragoonis@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Dec 2021, 00:06 David Gebler, <davidgebler@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 6:59 PM Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > a while ago it has been reported[1] that our header() function actually
> > > allows arbitrary status codes, which may even overflow.  Of course,
> that
> > > makes no sense, since the status code is supposed to be a three digit
> > > code.  So this ticket has been followed up by a pull request[2], and
> > > Jakub suggested to further restrict the status code to be in range 100
> -
> > > 599.
> > >
> >
> > Personally, I don't like restricting the status code to a number in the
> > 100-599 range. As far as I know, RFC 7230 doesn't mandate anything beyond
> > the requirement of 3 digits and while 7231 may only specify semantics for
> > 1xx-5xx, that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate use-case in custom or
> > internal applications for status codes outside the usual semantics.
> >
> > The overflow part is a legit bug which can and should be fixed, but I'd
> at
> > least question whether a user should be obliged to stick to conventional
> > HTTP semantics via the header() function, or even a strictly conformant
> > implementation of the standards defined 7320. Maybe this behaviour could
> be
> > default but overridable via a new, fourth optional parameter or
> something,
> > I don't know...but I can easily imagine someone having a legitimate
> context
> > in which they want to send status codes outside the usual range
> > representing custom semantics.
> >
>
>
> I think its safe to say we should restrict the overflow parts.
>
> As for boundaries; I don't know who is or isn't using their own custom
> status codes. It's unlikely, but entirely possible. As such, this is
> considered a BC break.
>
> If we apply restrictions to a minor release, then upgrading will be harder
> for 8.2 if we include this in the next release.
>
> You could say 98% of people are using standard ranges for status codes, but
> we do have to always take into account the 2% on our decisions.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Since this could break some pathological cases, I wanted to ask whether
> > > anybody objects to this change for the master branch (i.e. PHP 8.2).
> > >
> > > [1] <https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=81645>
> > > [2] <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/7676>
> > >
> > > Christoph
> > >
> > > --
> > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--0000000000005b651105d3d20f34--