Summary
spiffy-cgi-handlers: infinite redirect with cgit 'about' page
Metadata
- Id: 0451494d65d7eab9284ad0d4de86d546901c2c1b
- Trac id: 1752
- Type: defect
- Reporter: dieggsy
- Owner:
- Cc:
- Status: closed
- Component: extensions
- Estimated difficulty:
- Resolution: wontfix
- Priority: major
- Milestone: someday
- Version: 5.2.0
- Changetime: 2024-12-23 15:11:09 UTC
- Created: 2021-04-25 15:55:54 UTC
- Keywords: spiffy, spiffy-cgi-handlers
Description
For some reason, going to the "about" page on a cgit repostiory causes spiffy to infinitely redirect with something like the following sample debug log. I think I've observed the behavior on others' spiffy servers as well. Not sure I understand cgi well enough to provide more info.
spiffy92: Incoming request from 0.0.0.0 spiffy92: Handling request from 0.0.0.0 (cgi) started program /usr/lib/cgit/cgit.cgi(/usr/share/webapps/cgit/dotfiles/about/) ... spiffy92: Closing off spiffy93: Incoming request from 0.0.0.0 spiffy93: Handling request from 0.0.0.0 (cgi) started program /usr/lib/cgit/cgit.cgi(/usr/share/webapps/cgit/dotfiles/about/) ... spiffy93: Closing off spiffy94: Incoming request from 0.0.0.0 spiffy94: Handling request from 0.0.0.0 (cgi) started program /usr/lib/cgit/cgit.cgi(/usr/share/webapps/cgit/dotfiles/about/) ... spiffy94: Closing off spiffy95: Incoming request from 0.0.0.0 spiffy95: Handling request from 0.0.0.0 (cgi) started program /usr/lib/cgit/cgit.cgi(/usr/share/webapps/cgit/dotfiles/about/) ... spiffy95: Closing off spiffy96: Incoming request from 0.0.0.0 spiffy96: Handling request from 0.0.0.0 (cgi) started program /usr/lib/cgit/cgit.cgi(/usr/share/webapps/cgit/dotfiles/about/) ...
Changes and comments
[2021-04-25 18:05:47 UTC] dieggsy wrote:
I'm now unsure if this is a bug - Kooda proposes a solution using a different cgit config here:
https://paste.call-cc.org/paste?id=302245423e91ebbc159f690bf69c56dcc1d9a4cf
[2024-12-23 15:11:09 UTC] sjamaan changed status from new to closed
[2024-12-23 15:11:09 UTC] sjamaan set resolution to wontfix
[2024-12-23 15:11:09 UTC] sjamaan wrote:
Sounds like the alternative solution worked. If it comes up again, please reopen the ticket.