Website Migration Notice: SafePoint is now operated by CyberServal.Learn more →
DiscussionSLA

Support for custom http {}-level includes (e.g. custom_http.conf) for features like proxy_cache_path

Published 6 months ago

# SafeLine WAF
# 💡 feature
# 💪 improve

Published 6 months ago

profile_photo

chrismfz

Updated 6 months ago

0

First of all, thank you for the recent improvements on the customizable NGINX server-level configuration. It’s very helpful.

While adding custom directives inside the server {} blocks, there are still important use cases that require access to the top-level http {} block — especially for directives such as:

proxy_cache_path ...
map ...
log_format ...
gzip / brotli settings
upstream keepalive settings

Currently, editing nginx.conf directly does not persist across updates (composer down/up), and the WAF does not expose a way to modify the http {} block. This prevents enabling caching features like:

proxy_cache_path /usr/share/nginx/public-cache ...;

Support for a single custom include inside the global http {} context would be awesome, file could simply live in the persistence storage directory and be left untouched by updates.

profile_photo

Carrie

Updated 6 months ago

0

Could you provide specific use cases? What issues might occur if this cannot be configured? With this information, we can prioritize the request more highly.

profile_photo

chrismfz

Updated 6 months ago

0

Yeap, discussed here: https://safepoint.cloud/discussion/1300750053870272542
we need access to http {} to assign for example proxy cache path, and then "play around" with each application/vhost individually from the application frontend/menu - Custom NGINX Config - .

Also anything cache related like dynamic cache bypass, example: map $http_cookie
$cache_bypass {
"~*session" 1;
default 0;
}
Also useful for Subrequest / Temp file / buffer tuning, but for now, it's needed for at least proxy_cache_path if we need to alter per application settings and enable cache (or not).

profile_photo

Carrie

Updated a month ago

<@572151739202142228> We may add a web tamper-proofing feature in the future (but it’s not guaranteed). If we do add it, it would conflict with your caching request, so we may not consider it for now.