tahoe webapi gives HTTP 410 Gone for files that may actually come back #1764

New Issue

tahoe-lafs · 2012-06-10T18:50:23Z

ChosenOne commented

2012-06-10 18:50:23 +00:00

From RFC 2616 about HTTP 410 Gone:

The requested resource is no longer available at the server and no forwarding address is known. This condition is expected to be considered permanent.

This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise

the resource is intentionally unavailable and that the server owners desire that remote links to that resource be removed.

A few things are wrong about that:
If the gateway could not find enough shares due to a current lack of servers, the error is in fact temporary and links to that resource may become valid again.

tahoe should instead return a 404, i.e. http.NOT_FOUND instead of http.GONE

From RFC 2616 about HTTP 410 Gone: > The requested resource is no longer available at the server and no forwarding address is known. This condition is expected to be considered permanent. > This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise > the resource is intentionally unavailable and that the server owners desire that remote links to that resource be removed. A few things are wrong about that: If the gateway could not find enough shares due to a current lack of servers, the error is in fact temporary and links to that resource may become valid again. tahoe should instead return a 404, i.e. *http.NOT_FOUND* instead of *http.GONE*

tahoe-lafs added the

labels 2012-06-10 18:50:23 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added this to the undecided milestone 2012-06-10 18:50:23 +00:00

ChosenOne commented

2012-06-10 18:52:26 +00:00

Attachment ticket1764.patch (1572 bytes) added

-----------------------------1209707125297997201295061266
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="replace"

on

**Attachment** ticket1764.patch (1572 bytes) added -----------------------------1209707125297997201295061266 Content-Disposition: form-data; name="replace" on

ticket1764.patch

1.5 KiB

tahoe-lafs added

code-frontend-web

and removed

unknown

labels 2012-06-11 04:01:49 +00:00

tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from undecided to 1.10.0

2012-06-11 04:01:49 +00:00

tahoe-lafs changed title from ~~tahoe webapi gives HTTP 401 Gone for files that may actually come back~~ to tahoe webapi gives HTTP 410 Gone for files that may actually come back

2012-06-11 04:01:49 +00:00

davidsarah commented

2012-11-22 01:38:34 +00:00

If that patch doesn't break some tests, the test coverage was incomplete! :-) +1 on changing this, though.

tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from 1.10.0 to 1.11.0

2013-04-04 16:24:39 +00:00

leif commented

2013-04-25 20:30:57 +00:00

Would 504 Gateway Timeout not be more appropriate than 404 Not Found?

From the RFC:

The server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, did not receive a timely response from the upstream server specified by the URI (e.g. HTTP, FTP, LDAP) or some other auxiliary server (e.g. DNS) it needed to access in attempting to complete the request.

Would `504 Gateway Timeout` not be more appropriate than `404 Not Found`? From the RFC: >The server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, did not receive a timely response from the upstream server specified by the URI (e.g. HTTP, FTP, LDAP) or some other auxiliary server (e.g. DNS) it needed to access in attempting to complete the request.

daira commented

2013-05-30 19:23:58 +00:00

kpreid filed a duplicate #1993:

NotEnoughSharesError, NoSharesError, and UnrecoverableFileError, at least, are being reported using HTTP status code 410 Gone, which is a severe misuse of the code, as 410 means that the resource is known to be forevermore unavailable. Per RFC 2616 section 10.4.11:
The requested resource is no longer available at the server and no forwarding address is known. This condition is expected to be considered permanent. Clients with link editing capabilities SHOULD delete references to the Request-URI after user approval. If the server does not know, or has no facility to determine, whether or not the condition is permanent, the status code 404 (Not Found) SHOULD be used instead.
All of these errors indicate that the gateway is currently unable to fulfill the request (as any of them could result from temporary partition in the grid), not permanent deletion. 410 would be appropriate if, for example, a mutable file were put into a revoked, “no content and cannot be written to further”, state, but not for anything less drastic. (Tahoe is unusual in having even the architectural possibility of having enough confidence to correctly answer 410!)

The most appropriate response codes would be, I think, 404 for NoSharesError (because the grid has no knowledge of the file) and 503 for NotEnoughSharesError (because the grid knows the file exists but cannot be served). UnrecoverableFileError appears to be a conflation of the two in the case of mutable files, and so I see no good answer there but to introduce a distinction between the two cases.

Regardless, 410 should not be used in any of these cases.

I noticed this via https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2013-May/008313.html .

warner wrote:

Sounds good to me. Note that NoSharesError could be interpreted as an even-less-healthy version of NotEnoughSharesError, where there are so few shares that we couldn't find even a single one. So there might be an argument for reporting 503 in both cases.

If 410 means "it will never exist", does 404 mean "it might come back someday"? Also, does 410 imply anything about whether or not it used to exist? Are there any normal-web-server situations that would correctly produce a 410?

kpreid answered, in part:

I agree that 503 is not-wrong, but it is commonly understood that 404 can result from servers being temporarily broken; I think it is more valuable that to have the property that any bogus URL yields a 404.

I (Daira) agree.

If your grid is so flaky that you can lose all shares of a file, that's another problem entirely. (Actually: what if the gateway is not connected to enough storage servers that enough (properly spread) shares could not possibly be found? That would be an appropriate time for a 503 if no shares are found, since it is likely that the answer will be different when the grid is in better condition.)

That would be part of #719.

kpreid filed a duplicate #1993: > NotEnoughSharesError, NoSharesError, and UnrecoverableFileError, at least, are being reported using HTTP status code 410 Gone, which is a severe misuse of the code, as 410 means that the resource is **known to be** forevermore unavailable. Per RFC 2616 section 10.4.11: > > The requested resource is no longer available at the server and no forwarding address is known. This condition is expected to be considered permanent. Clients with link editing capabilities SHOULD delete references to the Request-URI after user approval. If the server does not know, or has no facility to determine, whether or not the condition is permanent, the status code 404 (Not Found) SHOULD be used instead. > > All of these errors indicate that the gateway is *currently* unable to fulfill the request (as any of them could result from temporary partition in the grid), not permanent deletion. 410 would be appropriate if, for example, a mutable file were put into a revoked, “no content and cannot be written to further”, state, but not for anything less drastic. (Tahoe is unusual in having even the architectural possibility of having enough confidence to correctly answer 410!) > > The most appropriate response codes would be, I think, 404 for NoSharesError (because the grid has no knowledge of the file) and 503 for NotEnoughSharesError (because the grid knows the file exists but cannot be served). UnrecoverableFileError appears to be a conflation of the two in the case of mutable files, and so I see no good answer there but to introduce a distinction between the two cases. > > Regardless, 410 should not be used in any of these cases. > > I noticed this via <https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2013-May/008313.html> . warner wrote: > Sounds good to me. Note that NoSharesError could be interpreted as an even-less-healthy version of NotEnoughSharesError, where there are so few shares that we couldn't find even a single one. So there might be an argument for reporting 503 in both cases. > > If 410 means "it will never exist", does 404 mean "it might come back someday"? Also, does 410 imply anything about whether or not it used to exist? Are there any normal-web-server situations that would correctly produce a 410? kpreid answered, in part: > I agree that 503 is not-wrong, but it is commonly understood that 404 can result from servers being temporarily broken; I think it is more valuable that to have the property that any bogus URL yields a 404. I (Daira) agree. > If your grid is so flaky that you can lose all shares of a file, that's another problem entirely. (Actually: what if the gateway is not connected to enough storage servers that enough (properly spread) shares could not possibly be found? That would be an appropriate time for a 503 if no shares are found, since it is likely that the answer will be different when the grid is in better condition.) That would be part of #719.

daira commented

2013-05-30 19:25:34 +00:00

Replying to daira:

kpreid wrote:

If your grid is so flaky that you can lose all shares of a file, that's another problem entirely. (Actually: what if the gateway is not connected to enough storage servers that enough (properly spread) shares could not possibly be found? That would be an appropriate time for a 503 if no shares are found, since it is likely that the answer will be different when the grid is in better condition.)

That would be part of #719.

and #1596.

Replying to [daira](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1764#issuecomment-88960): > kpreid wrote: > > If your grid is so flaky that you can lose all shares of a file, that's another problem entirely. (Actually: what if the gateway is not connected to enough storage servers that enough (properly spread) shares could not possibly be found? That would be an appropriate time for a 503 if no shares are found, since it is likely that the answer will be different when the grid is in better condition.) > > That would be part of #719. and #1596.

Sign in to join this conversation.