Re: [PATCH v2] http.c: use CURLOPT_RANGE for range requests
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Oct 30, 2015, 23:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqwpu4hrvq.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1446245682-18087-1-git-send-email-dturner@twopensource.com>
David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com> writes:
Show 8 quoted lines
> A HTTP server is permitted to return a non-range response to a HTTP > range request (and Apache httpd in fact does this in some cases). > While libcurl knows how to correctly handle this (by skipping bytes > before and after the requested range), it only turns on this handling > if it is aware that a range request is being made. By manually > setting the range header instead of using CURLOPT_RANGE, we were > hiding the fact that this was a range request from libcurl. This > could cause corruption.
Wow, that looks really bad.
Show 21 quoted lines
> Signed-off-by: David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com> > --- > > This version applies on top of pu. It also catches all of the range > requests instead of just the one that I happened to notice. > > --- > http.c | 24 ++++++++---------------- > http.h | 1 - > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/http.c b/http.c > index 6b89dea..16610b9 100644 > --- a/http.c > +++ b/http.c > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static CURL *curl_default; > #endif > > #define PREV_BUF_SIZE 4096 > -#define RANGE_HEADER_SIZE 30 > +#define RANGE_HEADER_SIZE 17
Was this change necessary and is 17-byte string sufficient for 64-bit longs?
Show 10 quoted lines
> @@ -1213,8 +1213,9 @@ static int http_request(const char *url,
> curl_easy_setopt(slot->curl, CURLOPT_WRITEFUNCTION,
> fwrite);
> if (posn > 0) {
> - strbuf_addf(&buf, "Range: bytes=%ld-", posn);
> - headers = curl_slist_append(headers, buf.buf);
> + strbuf_addf(&buf, "%ld-", posn);
> + curl_easy_setopt(slot->curl, CURLOPT_RANGE,
> + &buf.buf);
> strbuf_reset(&buf);Makes me wonder if all the callers have a CURL* and a long so that a new helper range_opt_ask_remainder(CURL *, long) can make the resulting code even simpler; we only say "we know what comes before this position, give us everything from there" in all callers, right?