Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactor rebuild_proxies to separate resolution and auth handling #5924

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 24, 2021

Conversation

nateprewitt
Copy link
Member

@nateprewitt nateprewitt commented Sep 2, 2021

This is a proposal for handling #5888 that's come out of discussion in an alternative PR (#5893). Given that we've stalled out on progress there for a few weeks, this PR is to help drive a conclusion. The approach taken here is to mitigate the incorrect behavior of stripping Proxy-Authorization headers off all requests sent with Session.send. This will not address the performance concerns from #5891 as that's a more significant problem without a clear answer.

The goal of driving this separately from #5891 is that one is an unintended breakage in basic behavior of the library and the second is an unfortunate performance regression. I'd like to address the former more quickly if possible instead of letting the problem fester.

without stripping Proxy-Authorization header
Copy link

@omermizr omermizr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey @nateprewitt, thanks for this!
I added a few comments following up on our discussions.

@@ -633,7 +620,10 @@ def send(self, request, **kwargs):
kwargs.setdefault('stream', self.stream)
kwargs.setdefault('verify', self.verify)
kwargs.setdefault('cert', self.cert)
kwargs.setdefault('proxies', self.rebuild_proxies(request, self.proxies))
if 'proxies' not in kwargs:
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This change should actually fix the performance regression in most cases (Session.request - which I assume is the most common flow - always sets proxies on kwargs).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep, I think proxies will be the escape hatch when performance is a concern here :)

@@ -633,7 +620,10 @@ def send(self, request, **kwargs):
kwargs.setdefault('stream', self.stream)
kwargs.setdefault('verify', self.verify)
kwargs.setdefault('cert', self.cert)
kwargs.setdefault('proxies', self.rebuild_proxies(request, self.proxies))
if 'proxies' not in kwargs:
kwargs['proxies'] = resolve_proxies(
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So now we're:

  1. No longer stripping the proxy-auth header. Sounds right to me.
  2. No longer setting the proxy-auth header at all. Is this the desired behavior? What if someone uses a proxy and passes the username + password in the url? (though I'm not sure if that flow is supported or not)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For 2.) we were never doing that before this change and I don't think that was an intended byproduct. We should still support our normal proxy auth flows that were available prior to #5681.

no_proxy = proxies.get('no_proxy')
new_proxies = proxies.copy()

bypass_proxy = should_bypass_proxies(url, no_proxy=no_proxy)
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Didn't we want to unify 850 and 851 so we don't call should_bypass_proxies if trust_env is False?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We do, I was going to have @dbaxa rebase their change onto whatever we merge so they can still have a commit in the repo.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds good to me.

Copy link

@Tabbbbs Tabbbbs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dbaxa
Copy link
Contributor

dbaxa commented Sep 13, 2021

When can we merge this @nateprewitt ?

@nateprewitt
Copy link
Member Author

nateprewitt commented Sep 13, 2021

I believe we're waiting on either some consensus with this proposal or feedback for another direction. @sigmavirus24 or @sethmlarson, do you have any thoughts on how we proceed with #5888?

@sigmavirus24 sigmavirus24 merged commit 99b3b49 into psf:main Nov 24, 2021
@nateprewitt nateprewitt deleted the proxy_auth branch November 24, 2021 19:21
This was referenced Dec 29, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 22, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants