Nils Goroll
Nils Goroll
@dridi [your last comment](https://github.com/varnishcache/varnish-cache/pull/4309#issuecomment-3019298638) aligns with my understanding.
So this seems to be due to the code path re-used for extensions not having the VCC parser tokens. So question to bugwash: Should we refactor to not use tokens?
bugwash: @bsdphk wants to have a look, thank you
bugwash: we would appreciate some more research regarding which scenarios would benefit from a similar mechanism. Also, the argument has been made that, once we send a response at all,...
bugwash: rework to parameter only, then OK
This is not as trivial as I thought to support the status range 400..499 _or_ 0.
has been discussed again, but the decision remains the same...
I renamed the parameter to `http_req_overflow_status` for consisteny with `http_req_size`.
I'd like to get https://github.com/varnishcache/varnish-cache/issues/4183 out of the way (see also https://github.com/nigoroll/libvmod-dynamic/commit/c894acd2e8b9d466a1948fa7c8e2e24c42becaea), then yes.
late bugwash note: We see that this is a problem, and it is not intended. We want to fail the vcl for any out-of-headers / out-of-workspace condition. 👀