On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 01:41:42PM +0200, Eugaia wrote:

> On 15/12/2010 13:35, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 01:21:19PM +0200, Eugaia wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Nice patch. I don't know if 'Header line too long' might be better than
> >> 'Too long header line'. Both make sense, but the former sounds a bit
> >> better to me.
> >>
> >> Just an idea.
> > May be "Header line is too long" ?
> I think 'Header line too long' would be more normal for this sort of
> thing, as they tend to be shortened English. 'Header too big' is
> another alternative, or perhaps even 'Header or cookie too big'. Adding
> the 'cookie' information may be useful to people who wouldn't think to
> look at cookies when just getting a message about headers.

Yes, mention of "cookie" is useful here, since this is the main cause
of these errors. "Header line or cookie too big". I use "line"
because nginx has another couse of 400 error: large header.
"Header line is too long" is logged when a single line of client header
is bigger than a buffer in large_client_header_buffers.
"Header is too large" is logged when sum of all header lines are bigger
than client_header_buffer_size plus large_client_header_buffers.
Probably this reason should cause 494 error too. And the resulting
message should be as you have suggested: "Request header or cookie too big".


--
Igor Sysoev
http://sysoev.ru/en/

_______________________________________________
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx