On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 12:12 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> Author: elukey
> Date: Sat Aug 27 10:12:23 2016
> New Revision: 1757982
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1757982&view=rev
> Log:
> Updated backport proposal with the latest discussion on dev@
> about Last-Modified header handling.
> I removed jchampion's vote since it was related to a completely
> different solution.
>
>
> Modified:
>     httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>
[]
>
>    *) core: Drop an invalid Last-Modified header value coming
> -     from a FCGI/CGI script instead of replacing it with Unix epoch.
> -     Warn the users about Last-Modified header value replacements and
> -     improved handling of non-GMT datestr.
> +     from a (F)CGI script instead of replacing it with Unix epoch.
> +     Warn the users about Last-Modified header value replacements
> +     and violations of the RFC.
>       trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1748379
>                    http://svn.apache.org/r1750747
>                    http://svn.apache.org/r1750749
> @@ -139,11 +139,13 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
>                    http://svn.apache.org/r1751138
>                    http://svn.apache.org/r1751139
>                    http://svn.apache.org/r1751147
> -     2.4.x: trunk patches works (final view http://apaste.info/9v3)
> -     The last revision has been discussed in dev@ and submitted by Yann.
> +                  http://svn.apache.org/r1757818
> +     2.4.x: trunk patches works (final view http://apaste.info/FCs)
> +     The last revision has been discussed extensively in dev@ and this seems 
> to be
> +     a good compromise for the moment.
>       Tested the code with a simple PHP script returning different 
> Last-Modified
> -     headers (GMT now, GMT now Europe/Paris, GMT tomorrow, GMT yesterday).
> -     +1: elukey, jchampion
> +     headers (GMT now, GMT now Europe/Paris, GMT tomorrow, GMT yesterday, 
> PST now).
> +     +1: elukey

As read it, this proposal (http://apaste.info/FCs) does not enforce
GMT date and will treat any other timezone as if it were GMT (per
apr_date_parse_http(), which does not look for "GMT" anywhere), right?

Shouldn't we either ignore (i.e. not forward) non-GMT, or change it to
GMT if it's a valid timezone?

The only way to do this would be to use apr_date_parse_rfc() in the first place.
If we'd want to ignore non-GMT, compare it to apr_date_parse_http().
And only otherwise or if it matches, let it go through ap_update_mtime().

I don't the difference between this proposal and the current code (but
TRACEs), ap_update_mtime() is a noop with APR_DATE_BAD.
Did I miss something?

Regards,
Yann.

Reply via email to