tree 05112cbeb48863e497bd2c34c3deb1f1bdbada0b
parent 5f8b86db94e789bc07258f98cc5ba25d18273d83
author Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 1549480728 -0500
committer Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 1549484419 -0800

remote-curl: refactor smart-http discovery

After making initial contact with an http server, we have to decide if
the server supports smart-http, and if so, which version. Our rules are
a bit inconsistent:

  1. For v0, we require that the content-type indicates a smart-http
     response. We also require the response to look vaguely like a
     pkt-line starting with "#". If one of those does not match, we fall
     back to dumb-http.

     But according to our http protocol spec[1]:

       Dumb servers MUST NOT return a return type starting with
       `application/x-git-`.

     If we see the expected content-type, we should consider it
     smart-http. At that point we can parse the pkt-line for real, and
     complain if it is not syntactically valid.

  2. For v2, we do not actually check the content-type. Our v2 protocol
     spec says[2]:

       When using the http:// or https:// transport a client makes a
       "smart" info/refs request as described in `http-protocol.txt`[...]

     and the http spec is clear that for a smart-http response[3]:

       The Content-Type MUST be `application/x-$servicename-advertisement`.

     So it is required according to the spec.

These inconsistencies were easy to miss because of the way the original
code was written as an inline conditional. Let's pull it out into its
own function for readability, and improve a few things:

 - we now predicate the smart/dumb decision entirely on the presence of
   the correct content-type

 - we do a real pkt-line parse before deciding how to proceed (and die
   if it isn't valid)

 - use skip_prefix() for comparing service strings, instead of
   constructing expected output in a strbuf; this avoids dealing with
   memory cleanup

Note that this _is_ tightening what the client will allow. It's all
according to the spec, but it's possible that other implementations
might violate these. However, violating these particular rules seems
like an odd choice for a server to make.

[1] Documentation/technical/http-protocol.txt, l. 166-167
[2] Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt, l. 63-64
[3] Documentation/technical/http-protocol.txt, l. 247

Helped-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>