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.
  • 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
                                      • mehdiM mehdi

                                        @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 Offline
                                        girishG Offline
                                        girish
                                        Staff
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #62

                                        @mehdi Ah, understood you better now. I am actually ok to add this hack in proxy auth code. We will still need some nginx/apache in the app code though to serve the registry UI (which is just static html).

                                        Suddenly, I am tempted to abandon my node server because I am struggling to make this proxy middleware work. It seems to have some bug with PATCH requests which docker registry uses.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • girishG Offline
                                          girishG Offline
                                          girish
                                          Staff
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #63

                                          I have published this app as unstable now. It also has an integrated UI. I have only very mildly tested it, so do not use it in production. I have created an app category for this, please report any issues there.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          4
                                          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