#987 closed defect (fixed)
HttpResponseRedirect uses/allows relative URIs for the HTTP Location header, which is forbidden by HTTP
Reported by: | Owned by: | nobody | |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Core (Other) | Version: | |
Severity: | minor | Keywords: | |
Cc: | henryk@…, tbarta@…, tyson@…, dev@…, forest@…, ludvig.ericson@…, sam@…, absoludity@… | Triage Stage: | Ready for checkin |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
Moin,
Using the HttpResponseRedirect class (for example as in part 4 of the Django tutorial) may create a Location: header in the HTTP response with a relative URI, which is forbidden by RFC 2616, section 14.30 (an absolute URI is required). Call me a perfectionist, but I think that should be fixed.
The best solution would probably be to automatically create an absolute URI if the URI that is used to create the Redirect is a relative one, so that the apps don't have to deal with it (and stay decoupled from the project). Alternatively update the tutorial and docs with information on how to create an absolute URI.
-- Henryk Plötz Grüße aus Berlin
Attachments (7)
Change History (35)
comment:1 by , 19 years ago
comment:2 by , 19 years ago
The host to use could just be sites.get_current().domain - that's what it's there for, to get the current running site (based on the SITE_ID setting).
comment:3 by , 19 years ago
Just one small problem with using sites.get_current().domain
-- it assumes the developer has edited the sites table. For something as core as redirects, I'm not sure we would want to assume that, because it could confuse people.
comment:4 by , 19 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
Moin,
one easy way to get developers to edit the site table is to put information and recommendation on it into the tutorial. I for one don't know anything about it yet and didn't see any obvious documentation on how to use it. Another possibility: the URI scheme (http or https) and host name should be deducible from the WSGI environment.
So a good plan is: Leave the site unconfigured in the default configuration and take the values that the browser provided (and maybe even log a warning once in a while). As soon as a site and base URI are correctly configured these settings should override the browser provided values, because the configured values presumably give the canonical URI. That's also basically the way Apache handles the issue.
Related issue: There should be a dead easy and clearly documented way to retrieve the absolute URI of the current site or even app, and a relative URI to the root of the current site/app.
-- Henryk Plötz Grüße aus Berlin
comment:5 by , 18 years ago
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Design decision needed |
---|
comment:7 by , 18 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
I agree with Henryk, there should be a clearly defined method to retrieve the abosulute URI for the the current site/app, using the same logic that the Apache webserver uses to resolve the server name.
HttpResponseRedirect should parse redirect_to and determine if it is absolute or relative. If relative, use os.path.join and os.path.normpath or similar in conjunction with the method specified by Henryk to create the absolute URI.
FYI, Safari is a picky browser that (correctly) barfs on relative URIs.
comment:8 by , 18 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|---|
Has patch: | set |
I've made a patch which checks if the sites framework has been changed from its default setting, if yes, then HttpResponseRedirect will return an absolute URL. If NOT, then we'll keep the relative redirect.
by , 18 years ago
Attachment: | absolute.diff added |
---|
by , 18 years ago
comment:9 by , 18 years ago
Note that I'm not sure what the best thing to do when there's multiple sites installed - I've never used them.
by , 18 years ago
Attachment: | absolute2.diff added |
---|
comment:10 by , 18 years ago
Here's a patch that takes into account the SITE_ID setting in the settings.py, but this may be getting too dependant on settings etc.
by , 17 years ago
Attachment: | redirect_absoluteuri.patch added |
---|
comment:12 by , 17 years ago
Forget about using the optional sites. If we use a piece of response middleware we can get the scheme and host from the request.
Doesn't this make more sense?
comment:13 by , 17 years ago
Getting this right is not an optional feature, so I think it should be in the core message handling path, not something you might accidentally remove if you remove the middleware. It's not compulsory to have CommonMiddleware installed.
comment:14 by , 17 years ago
Fair enough, but it is still a much better fit than relying on sites
. I'm thinking perhaps (and had actually originally implemented before I joined it with ComonMiddleware) we could have a compulsary_middleware
property of the BaseHandler which contained some processors that were always enabled and activated before any ones from settings.MIDDLEWARE_CLASSES
- I think the streaming upload was going to need a "compulsary" middleware too.
by , 17 years ago
Attachment: | redirect_absoluteuri.2.patch added |
---|
comment:15 by , 17 years ago
Ok, here's a take on the same thing without using the CommonMiddleware. Comes with tests this time.
This patch does two things, but since the second relies on the first I'm naughtily submitting them together.
- New function
request.build_absolute_uri(location)
- New BaseCommonMiddleware attached to the BaseHandler
comment:16 by , 17 years ago
Actually, the patch calls it BaseCompulsaryMiddleware
, but I like the name BaseMandatoryMiddleware
more now I think about it.
See also: #4986, which will make get_host
a bit more functional too.
follow-up: 18 comment:17 by , 17 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
Sorry if I'm being blatantly ignorant, but kind sires, can we not simply try to find the HTTP Host header, which is in fact mandatory in HTTP 1.1, and most HTTP 1.0 clients send it anyway? If it doesn't exist, then the client leaves us no choice but to violate the HTTP RFCs. Not entirely sure how this would be done with Django, but the concept is there.
On a slightly related note, I don't get why you need absolute URLs, what bothers me most is the fact that you have to specify the protocol (scheme if you will) - makes it even harder as we have to specify HTTP vs. HTTPS.
+add self to Cc
comment:18 by , 17 years ago
Replying to Ludvig Ericson <ludvig.ericson@gmail.com>:
Sorry if I'm being blatantly ignorant, but kind sires, can we not simply try to find the HTTP Host header, which is in fact mandatory in HTTP 1.1, and most HTTP 1.0 clients send it anyway?
Did you read my patch? That's pretty much what it does.
If it doesn't exist, then the client leaves us no choice but to violate the HTTP RFCs. Not entirely sure how this would be done with Django, but the concept is there.
Regarding getting it, get_host
is how it is done in Django. And #4986 will make it a bit smarter still to fall back if the HTTP Host isn't provided.
On a slightly related note, I don't get why you need absolute URLs, what bothers me most is the fact that you have to specify the protocol (scheme if you will) - makes it even harder as we have to specify HTTP vs. HTTPS.
We're just trying to follow the HTTP spec, and this is the wrong place to contest that ;). If you check out my patch, you'll see that it's all handled pretty well (and automatically).
comment:19 by , 17 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
Please fix this. Redirects must be absolute.
I get very strange results with Apache and SCGI:
Redirects after POST: The URL in the browser (firefox 1.5.04) does
not change, but the content of the post result gets displayed.
(See also http://barryp.org/blog/feeds/atom/scgi/)
follow-up: 23 comment:20 by , 17 years ago
Chris is there a reason why you wrote this as a middleware instead of just putting the functionality directly into Django's HTTP handler? It's kind of confusing to have a middleware which nonetheless forces itself to be always enabled...
comment:21 by , 17 years ago
Triage Stage: | Design decision needed → Ready for checkin |
---|
The patch redirect_absoluteuri.patch works for me. The SCGI redirect problems are gone.
I looked at the source and I think it could be commited.
redirect_absoluteuri.2.patch builds an own middleware. I think that is not necessary.
Absolute redirects should be enabled by default.
The patches from Simon G. don't work, since they only work for http, but not for https.
comment:22 by , 17 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
comment:23 by , 17 years ago
Replying to ubernostrum:
Chris is there a reason why you wrote this as a middleware instead of just putting the functionality directly into Django's HTTP handler? It's kind of confusing to have a middleware which nonetheless forces itself to be always enabled...
- Logic abstraction
- Ability to easily extend/override in a HTTP Handler subclass (probably YAGNI, I know)
It's only confusing if you're looking at source - I wouldn't bother putting it in documentation.
comment:24 by , 17 years ago
Thomas, the redirect shouldn't be optional. So the problem with just attaching it to the common
middleware is that it can be disabled.
2.patch
attaches the new middleware directly to Django's base HTTP handler - you don't manually attach it in your settings.
It also adds the cool new function request.build_absolute_uri(location)
;)
by , 17 years ago
Attachment: | redirect_absoluteuri.3.patch added |
---|
by , 17 years ago
Attachment: | redirect_absoluteuri.4.patch added |
---|
a rogue import snuck in there somehow
comment:25 by , 17 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
comment:26 by , 17 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
Am I right in saying that since this change, all unit tests using something along the lines of:
self.assertRedirects(response, '/accounts/login/')
will currently need to include the actual site's url (or a settings variable) like:
self.assertRedirects(response, settings.HOME_URL + '/accounts/login/') (certainly seems to be the case for me!)?
If so, I'm guessing assertRedirects needs to be updated so that it only checks the path of the responseLocation (although this won't always be true either, for eg where people are using middleware subdomain mapping to do things like http://me.example.com/inbox/ -> http://example.com/u/me/inbox/ etc.).
Or is it better to leave as is so that the unit-tests are coupled to site? Thoughts?
Thanks for any feedback!
-Michael
comment:27 by , 17 years ago
Sorry, my mistake... I'd forgotten that I'm explicitly setting the HTTP_HOST header in my base test-case class so that I can do the middleware subdomain mapping mentioned above.
-Michael
comment:28 by , 16 years ago
Cc: | removed |
---|
while relative redirects might not be in the HTTP spec, most browsers work with them.
which hostname do you propose to use for the absolute URI?
django is not really in a position in most cases to know what the right one is, unless your application can figure it out, and in some cases can not be determined when django gets the request.