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 <gmm@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