-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.8k
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
fix(proxy-cache): follow request Cache-Control: no-cache
header field
#14139
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
cache-control
header no-cache
field base on rfc7234
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This fix would change the cached object format instead of only refreshing it. We keep the request body in the cache and the new code is returning before storing it.
My suggestion is to skip the fetch()
call when Cache-Control: no-cache
and setting the correct cache status in the signal_cache_req()
call.
set_header(conf, "X-Cache-Key", cache_key) | ||
if conf.cache_control then | ||
if cc["no-cache"] then | ||
return signal_cache_req(ctx, conf, cache_key, "Bypass") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we return here, we're not caching the request body.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@locao ,
Just out of curiosity, why are we caching the request body? Used somewhere else?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@khaled4vokalz yes, it is not used directly by this plugin, but exposed in the request ctx
variable so logging plugins can use it to log full request details.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand sharing it via the ctx
but as we're using ngx.shared memory space to cache things, caching some object which is not used for anything seems a bit ambitious to me. There can be large request bodies from clients. That's the reason I asked. I was wondering if it'll be a good idea to remove the request_body from the cached object to save some space.
One more thing here is that the ctx
we're using in the plugin itself is the plugin context that's not shared between plugins for use, rather it's only available in this plugin's lifecycle.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was wondering if it'll be a good idea to remove the request_body from the cached object to save some space.
Removing it now is not expected by custom plugins which can use this field. It can go from just changing the behavior to break someone's logging process completely.
But if you're using Kong Enterprise Edition, you can select redis as a caching strategy :)
the ctx we're using in the plugin itself is the plugin context
Actually, we copy the cached data to the shared context when cache is hit.
cache-control
header no-cache
field base on rfc7234Cache-Control: no-cache
header
Cache-Control: no-cache
headerCache-Control: no-cache
header field
Summary
Previously, when the header field
Cache-Control
contained the directiveno-cache
, the proxy-cache plugin was not caching at all, which is not the behavior described by RFC-7234.Checklist
changelog/unreleased/kong
orskip-changelog
label added on PR if changelog is unnecessary. README.mdIssue reference
Fix #14120
KAG-6165