Bug 1502780

Summary: radosgw refuses upload when Content-Type missing from POST policy
Product: [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage Reporter: Vikhyat Umrao <vumrao>
Component: RGWAssignee: Matt Benjamin (redhat) <mbenjamin>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Vidushi Mishra <vimishra>
Severity: high Docs Contact: Aron Gunn <agunn>
Priority: high    
Version: 2.3CC: agunn, cbodley, ceph-eng-bugs, dh3, hnallurv, kbader, kdreyer, mamccoma, mbenjamin, owasserm, sweil, vumrao
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: 2.5   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: RHEL: ceph-10.2.10-9.el7cp Ubuntu: ceph_10.2.10-6redhat1xenial Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
.The Ceph Object Gateway no longer refuses an S3 upload when the Content-Type field is missing When doing a Simple Storage Service (S3) upload, if the Content-Type field was missing from the policy part of the upload, then Ceph Object Gateway refused the upload with a 403 error: ---- Policy missing condition: Content-Type ---- With this update, the S3 POST policy does not require the Content-Type field.
 Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 1530775 (view as bug list) Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-02-21 19:44:55 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 1530775    
Bug Blocks: 1536401    
Attachments:
Description Flags
rgw logs with debug_rgw=20
none
ut-and-paste from the browser dev tools, showing the request headers and payload. none

Description Vikhyat Umrao 2017-10-16 16:46:19 UTC 
Created attachment 1339390 [details]
rgw logs with debug_rgw=20

Description of problem:
radosgw refuses upload when Content-Type missing from POST policy

Upstream tracker: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20201


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
jewel 10.2.7


How reproducible:
In the customer environment always 


When doing an S3 upload, if Content-Type is missing from the policy part of the upload, then radosgw refuses the upload with a 403 error, "Policy missing condition: Content-Type". The same upload to AWS S3 is successful, despite the Content-Type not being present in the uploaded policy. radosgw should accept this, for better interoperability.

Context: this was encountered when using Fine Uploader https://github.com/FineUploader/fine-uploader to get files into an S3 bucket. When a user tries to upload a file which the browser can't identify (because it has an unrecognized or missing filename extension) then the Content-Type is not added to the POST'ed policy.
Comment 2 Vikhyat Umrao 2017-10-16 16:52:04 UTC 
Created attachment 1339391 [details]
ut-and-paste from the browser dev tools, showing the request headers and payload.
Comment 3 Vikhyat Umrao 2017-10-16 16:52:50 UTC 
Attachments:

options-and-failing-post-20170531.txt is a radosgw debug = 20 log, showing the OPTIONS pre-flight call succeeding, and the POST failing at "env var missing in policy: Content-Type"

s3-upload-policy-missing-content-type-20170531.txt is cut-and-paste from the browser dev tools, showing the request headers and payload.

Where are you experiencing the behavior?  What environment?

We first encountered this on Ceph 10.2.3. Our Ceph is 10.2.7 (latest Ubuntu packaged version for Xenial).
Comment 4 Vikhyat Umrao 2017-11-01 20:00:14 UTC 
Master branch PR - https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/18658
Comment 5 mamccoma 2017-11-14 14:50:21 UTC 
customer has confirmed this resolved their issue, and has also updated Upstream tracker stating this: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20201
Comment 7 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2017-12-21 16:01:55 UTC 
This is not in v12.2.1 upstream so we need to track this for RHCEPH 3.0 now as well.
Comment 9 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2018-01-03 18:55:51 UTC 
Would you please cherry-pick the change to ceph-3.0-rhel-patches (with the RHCEPH 3 clone ID number, "Resolves: rhbz#1530775") so customers do not experience a regression?
Comment 19 errata-xmlrpc 2018-02-21 19:44:55 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2018:0340
Comment 20 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-14 04:10:09 UTC 
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days