[release/9.0] Fix Kestrel host header mismatch handling when port in Url #59362
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
github-actions
bot
requested review from
halter73,
BrennanConroy,
JamesNK and
mgravell
as code owners
dotnet-issue-labeler
bot
added
the
area-networking
BrennanConroy
added
Servicing-consider
dotnet-policy-service
bot
added
the
pending-ci-rerun
adityamandaleeka
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2025
This was referenced Feb 12, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Backport of #59352 to release/9.0
/cc @BrennanConroy
Fix Kestrel host header mismatch handling when port in Url
Description
Fixes some validation of host headers in Kestrel if a non-default port is included in the request url.
Customer Impact
Valid requests will result in a 400 error response if they hit this case.
An internal partner team is hitting this currently.
Regression?
Risk
Small bug fix with additional unit test coverage to make sure it works and doesn't regress in the future.
Verification
Packaging changes reviewed?