Cloudron makes it easy to run web apps like WordPress, Nextcloud, GitLab on your server. Find out more or install now.


Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Bookmarks
  • Search
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

Cloudron Forum

Apps | Demo | Docs | Install
  1. Cloudron Forum
  2. App Wishlist
  3. Docker registry

Docker registry

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Solved App Wishlist
65 Posts 9 Posters 26.4k Views 12 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • mehdiM Offline
    mehdiM Offline
    mehdi
    App Dev
    wrote on last edited by
    #42

    I am 100% in favor of bundling a simple UI together with the registry. Even if one does not need it and wants to use the gitlab UI, there's basically nothing to lose besides a few kB of storage ^^

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
    • jimcavoliJ Offline
      jimcavoliJ Offline
      jimcavoli
      App Dev
      wrote on last edited by
      #43

      Yeah, Quay and Harbor are definitely the big players in this space. Very similar products - harbor is CNCF graduated and Quay is upstream for the corresponding Red Hat product. Either (or both) would be good UI adds.

      marioM 1 Reply Last reply
      1
      • girishG Offline
        girishG Offline
        girish
        Staff
        wrote on last edited by
        #44

        Last I checked harbor was impractical to package (as in way too much effort, it's really geared for the k8s crowd). Quay is a good option, but let me get this basic docker registry out first, I am almost there.

        1 Reply Last reply
        3
        • jimcavoliJ jimcavoli

          Yeah, Quay and Harbor are definitely the big players in this space. Very similar products - harbor is CNCF graduated and Quay is upstream for the corresponding Red Hat product. Either (or both) would be good UI adds.

          marioM Offline
          marioM Offline
          mario
          App Dev
          wrote on last edited by
          #45

          @jimcavoli Quay afaik implements the protocol as well, so no need for registry separately.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • girishG Offline
            girishG Offline
            girish
            Staff
            wrote on last edited by
            #46

            So strange, I am getting a "invalid checksum digest format" whenever I push now to this registry. Has anyone seen such an error before?

            The push refers to repository [xxx.xxx.xxx/cloudron/base]
            fcdfeda3e242: Layer already exists 
            0ea3bde29271: Layer already exists 
            d75ccb14b8b6: Layer already exists 
            74b4389a43ab: Layer already exists 
            5f38ae1e1a63: Layer already exists 
            3479c151673d: Layer already exists 
            7a307b866f25: Layer already exists 
            ce3a66c20e17: Layer already exists 
            7197b970ebb9: Layer already exists 
            16542a8fc3be: Layer already exists 
            6597da2e2e52: Layer already exists 
            977183d4e999: Layer already exists 
            c8be1b8f4d60: Layer already exists 
            invalid checksum digest format
            
            marioM 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • girishG girish

              So strange, I am getting a "invalid checksum digest format" whenever I push now to this registry. Has anyone seen such an error before?

              The push refers to repository [xxx.xxx.xxx/cloudron/base]
              fcdfeda3e242: Layer already exists 
              0ea3bde29271: Layer already exists 
              d75ccb14b8b6: Layer already exists 
              74b4389a43ab: Layer already exists 
              5f38ae1e1a63: Layer already exists 
              3479c151673d: Layer already exists 
              7a307b866f25: Layer already exists 
              ce3a66c20e17: Layer already exists 
              7197b970ebb9: Layer already exists 
              16542a8fc3be: Layer already exists 
              6597da2e2e52: Layer already exists 
              977183d4e999: Layer already exists 
              c8be1b8f4d60: Layer already exists 
              invalid checksum digest format
              
              marioM Offline
              marioM Offline
              mario
              App Dev
              wrote on last edited by
              #47

              @girish local filesystem?

              girishG 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • marioM mario

                @girish local filesystem?

                girishG Offline
                girishG Offline
                girish
                Staff
                wrote on last edited by girish
                #48

                @mario Yes, with the local storage. I wonder if it's something to do with the proxy auth. I am trying it without auth now.

                edit: indeed, something to do with the proxy auth. It works fine without proxy auth. Debugging.

                mehdiM 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • girishG girish

                  @mario Yes, with the local storage. I wonder if it's something to do with the proxy auth. I am trying it without auth now.

                  edit: indeed, something to do with the proxy auth. It works fine without proxy auth. Debugging.

                  mehdiM Offline
                  mehdiM Offline
                  mehdi
                  App Dev
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #49

                  @girish Are you on 6.1 ? Maybe your 2FA implementation broke something with the basic auth ?

                  girishG 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • mehdiM mehdi

                    @girish Are you on 6.1 ? Maybe your 2FA implementation broke something with the basic auth ?

                    girishG Offline
                    girishG Offline
                    girish
                    Staff
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #50

                    @mehdi yeah, i had that in mind and tried with 6.0 as well. fails the same. I am pretty sure this worked when I tested it back then, so I must have broke something !

                    mehdiM 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • girishG girish

                      @mehdi yeah, i had that in mind and tried with 6.0 as well. fails the same. I am pretty sure this worked when I tested it back then, so I must have broke something !

                      mehdiM Offline
                      mehdiM Offline
                      mehdi
                      App Dev
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #51

                      @girish You can try with an app-password, or try another Basic Auth ProxyAuth app, like Transmission (with an android app or a browser extension)

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • girishG Offline
                        girishG Offline
                        girish
                        Staff
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #52

                        What I am seeing is that docker doesn't send any authorization header at all. The issue is very similar to https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55516317/docker-login-not-passing-basic-authentication-headers-to-nginx . I can curl just fine.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • girishG Offline
                          girishG Offline
                          girish
                          Staff
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #53

                          It seems that v2 registry auth does not use the basic bearer based authentication at all. https://docs.docker.com/registry/recipes/nginx/ is possibly obsolete, but I am trying to setup a registry from scratch now to double check.

                          marioM mehdiM 2 Replies Last reply
                          2
                          • girishG girish

                            It seems that v2 registry auth does not use the basic bearer based authentication at all. https://docs.docker.com/registry/recipes/nginx/ is possibly obsolete, but I am trying to setup a registry from scratch now to double check.

                            marioM Offline
                            marioM Offline
                            mario
                            App Dev
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #54

                            @girish it definitely can, that's how GitLab etc integration works.

                            girishG 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • girishG girish

                              It seems that v2 registry auth does not use the basic bearer based authentication at all. https://docs.docker.com/registry/recipes/nginx/ is possibly obsolete, but I am trying to setup a registry from scratch now to double check.

                              mehdiM Offline
                              mehdiM Offline
                              mehdi
                              App Dev
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #55

                              @girish Their doc indeed appears to be outdated. Different pages seem to indicate different things ...

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • marioM mario

                                @girish it definitely can, that's how GitLab etc integration works.

                                girishG Offline
                                girishG Offline
                                girish
                                Staff
                                wrote on last edited by girish
                                #56

                                @mario thanks! i needed such a confident statement to help me keep looking further 🙂

                                I managed to get it to work. The issue is that proxyAuth on an auth fail redirects to the login page. But the docker registry wants it to return a 401 with a www-authenticate header. The header also causes issues with browsers since it starts popping up the login dialog.

                                In essence, even though the basic auth works, proxyAuth is not compatible. I thought about adding an flag to the manifest to have a different behavior but then again I don't like the current approach where we just install this registry and land on an empty page (any page even some static html with instructions would be better).

                                I ended up packaging it together the docker registry UI and a small LDAP server (from https://git.cloudron.io/cloudron/cloudron-serve). I haven't pushed the changes since they are not working entirely. But it's what I am working on in parallel with getting 6.1 out.

                                fbartelsF mehdiM 2 Replies Last reply
                                4
                                • girishG girish

                                  @mario thanks! i needed such a confident statement to help me keep looking further 🙂

                                  I managed to get it to work. The issue is that proxyAuth on an auth fail redirects to the login page. But the docker registry wants it to return a 401 with a www-authenticate header. The header also causes issues with browsers since it starts popping up the login dialog.

                                  In essence, even though the basic auth works, proxyAuth is not compatible. I thought about adding an flag to the manifest to have a different behavior but then again I don't like the current approach where we just install this registry and land on an empty page (any page even some static html with instructions would be better).

                                  I ended up packaging it together the docker registry UI and a small LDAP server (from https://git.cloudron.io/cloudron/cloudron-serve). I haven't pushed the changes since they are not working entirely. But it's what I am working on in parallel with getting 6.1 out.

                                  fbartelsF Offline
                                  fbartelsF Offline
                                  fbartels
                                  App Dev
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #57

                                  @girish said in Docker registry:

                                  I ended up packaging it together the docker registry UI and a small LDAP server

                                  That sounds intriguing. What role does the ldap server serve? Just for auth against the registry ui?

                                  girishG 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • girishG girish

                                    @mario thanks! i needed such a confident statement to help me keep looking further 🙂

                                    I managed to get it to work. The issue is that proxyAuth on an auth fail redirects to the login page. But the docker registry wants it to return a 401 with a www-authenticate header. The header also causes issues with browsers since it starts popping up the login dialog.

                                    In essence, even though the basic auth works, proxyAuth is not compatible. I thought about adding an flag to the manifest to have a different behavior but then again I don't like the current approach where we just install this registry and land on an empty page (any page even some static html with instructions would be better).

                                    I ended up packaging it together the docker registry UI and a small LDAP server (from https://git.cloudron.io/cloudron/cloudron-serve). I haven't pushed the changes since they are not working entirely. But it's what I am working on in parallel with getting 6.1 out.

                                    mehdiM Offline
                                    mehdiM Offline
                                    mehdi
                                    App Dev
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #58

                                    @girish I think the best approach would be to do a bit of user-agent parsing magic... Yeah, it would be quite specific for this use-case, but 🤷

                                    girishG 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • fbartelsF fbartels

                                      @girish said in Docker registry:

                                      I ended up packaging it together the docker registry UI and a small LDAP server

                                      That sounds intriguing. What role does the ldap server serve? Just for auth against the registry ui?

                                      girishG Offline
                                      girishG Offline
                                      girish
                                      Staff
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #59

                                      @fbartels said in Docker registry:

                                      That sounds intriguing. What role does the ldap server serve? Just for auth against the registry ui?

                                      Yes, pretty much. It's just a proxy that redirects to login page and auths against LDAP. The code itself is very small, just ~100 lines or so.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • mehdiM mehdi

                                        @girish I think the best approach would be to do a bit of user-agent parsing magic... Yeah, it would be quite specific for this use-case, but 🤷

                                        girishG Offline
                                        girishG Offline
                                        girish
                                        Staff
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #60

                                        @mehdi Right, I considered UA string hack but I think dropping users in a blank page is a bit rough. So, my first step was to do the UA testing with nginx in the app itself. But, that brought the dreaded browser auth modal dialog which I really dislike. It's the main reason I ended up making proxyAuth in the first place 😉 So.. I ended up making a node server.

                                        mehdiM 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • girishG girish

                                          @mehdi Right, I considered UA string hack but I think dropping users in a blank page is a bit rough. So, my first step was to do the UA testing with nginx in the app itself. But, that brought the dreaded browser auth modal dialog which I really dislike. It's the main reason I ended up making proxyAuth in the first place 😉 So.. I ended up making a node server.

                                          mehdiM Offline
                                          mehdiM Offline
                                          mehdi
                                          App Dev
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #61

                                          @girish No, I mean, after testing you could keep the proxyAuth, but do a test on the proxyAuth that could show the page for browsers, and send the expected 401 for docker client. Then we could have the best of both worlds : integration with platform LDAP, a simple registry UI, and working CLI.

                                          girishG 1 Reply Last reply
                                          2
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Bookmarks
                                          • Search