looking up local images should consider search registries

[juhp]

/kind bug

Description

podman run <imagename> chose an older local image.

Steps to reproduce the issue:

1. podman pull docker.io/fedora:33 && podman pull registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:33
2. podman run -it --rm fedora:33
3. check which image is chosen

Describe the results you received:
For me the older image was run (in my case my docker.io/fedora:33 was several months old).

Describe the results you expected:
Newer image to used.
Or is this a security feature?

Output of podman version:

Version:            1.9.2
RemoteAPI Version:  1
Go Version:         go1.13.10
OS/Arch:            linux/amd64

Output of podman info --debug:

debug:
  compiler: gc
  gitCommit: ""
  goVersion: go1.13.10
  podmanVersion: 1.9.2
host:
  arch: amd64
  buildahVersion: 1.14.8
  cgroupVersion: v2
  conmon:
    package: conmon-2.0.16-2.fc31.x86_64
    path: /usr/bin/conmon
    version: 'conmon version 2.0.16, commit: aec991fec16dc45935de184f2ea06a6ffca200a0'
  cpus: 8
  distribution:
    distribution: fedora
    version: "31"
  eventLogger: file
  hostname: localhost.localdomain
  idMappings:
    gidmap:
    - container_id: 0
      host_id: 1000
      size: 1
    - container_id: 1
      host_id: 100000
      size: 65536
    uidmap:
    - container_id: 0
      host_id: 1000
      size: 1
    - container_id: 1
      host_id: 100000
      size: 65536
  kernel: 5.6.13-200.fc31.x86_64
  memFree: 8420085760
  memTotal: 16416141312
  ociRuntime:
    name: crun
    package: crun-0.13-2.fc31.x86_64
    path: /usr/bin/crun
    version: |-
      crun version 0.13
      commit: e79e4de4ac16da0ce48777afb72c6241de870525
      spec: 1.0.0
      +SYSTEMD +SELINUX +APPARMOR +CAP +SECCOMP +EBPF +YAJL
  os: linux
  rootless: true
  slirp4netns:
    executable: /usr/bin/slirp4netns
    package: slirp4netns-1.0.1-1.fc31.x86_64
    version: |-
      slirp4netns version 1.0.1
      commit: 6a7b16babc95b6a3056b33fb45b74a6f62262dd4
      libslirp: 4.1.0
  swapFree: 8296329216
  swapTotal: 8296329216
  uptime: 22m 41.8s
registries:
  search:
  - registry.fedoraproject.org
  - registry.access.redhat.com
  - registry.centos.org
  - docker.io
store:
  configFile: /var/home/petersen/.config/containers/storage.conf
  containerStore:
    number: 8
    paused: 0
    running: 1
    stopped: 7
  graphDriverName: overlay
  graphOptions:
    overlay.mount_program:
      Executable: /usr/bin/fuse-overlayfs
      Package: fuse-overlayfs-1.0.0-1.fc31.x86_64
      Version: |-
        fusermount3 version: 3.6.2
        fuse-overlayfs: version 1.0.0
        FUSE library version 3.6.2
        using FUSE kernel interface version 7.29
  graphRoot: /var/home/petersen/.local/share/containers/storage
  graphStatus:
    Backing Filesystem: extfs
    Native Overlay Diff: "false"
    Supports d_type: "true"
    Using metacopy: "false"
  imageStore:
    number: 39
  runRoot: /run/user/1000
  volumePath: /var/home/petersen/.local/share/containers/storage/volumes

Package info (e.g. output of rpm -q podman or apt list podman):

podman-1.9.2-1.fc31.x86_64

Additional environment details (AWS, VirtualBox, physical, etc.):

Physical: Fedora 31 Silverblue

[rhatdan]

This is based on the search path in your registries.conf. Since docker.io comes first, it will be chosen first. If you want to use fedora registry images first then you need to either fully specify the fedora registry or switch the search order.

[rhatdan]

Registries.conf in fedora by default have this search path.
unqualified-search-registries = ['registry.fedoraproject.org', 'registry.access.redhat.com', 'registry.centos.org', 'docker.io']
Which means that docker.io should be chosen last.

[juhp]

Registries.conf in fedora by default have this search path.
unqualified-search-registries = ['registry.fedoraproject.org', 'registry.access.redhat.com', 'registry.centos.org', 'docker.io']
Which means that docker.io should be chosen last.

It wasn't :-)

I think you mean for remote "resolution", whereas I am talking about local images.

I am wondering if it depends on the order of the original image pulls?
Or it is doing lexical ordering?

[juhp]

To clarify my original report/question:

$ podman images fedora:33
REPOSITORY                          TAG   IMAGE ID       CREATED        SIZE
registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora   33    a23de53c4305   39 hours ago   190 MB
docker.io/library/fedora            33    1910ec046b4b   3 months ago   207 MB
$ podman run -it --rm fedora:33 rpm -q rpm
rpm-4.15.1-2.fc32.1.x86_64
$ podman run -it --rm registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:33 rpm -q rpm
rpm-4.15.90-0.git14971.12.fc33.x86_64

So my question was why does podman choose the older (or first installed) image in my case?

[vrothberg]

I can reproduce with:

libpod (master) $ ./bin/podman inspect --format '{{.RepoTags}}' fedora:33
[docker.io/library/fedora:33]

Note that the described order of unqualified-serach-registries only applies when pulling (and searching) but not for other operations.

[vrothberg]

I reopened to find consensus how Podman should behave.

[mheon]

This is one of the things I really wanted to solve in the refactor of the image package to be shared with Buildah & CRI-O - consistent resolution is shortnames is a significant issue in our tools.

[rhatdan]

@ParkerVR @ryanchpowell This is a case where the shortname table would help out, so the user referring to a shortname is always the same.

[github-actions]

A friendly reminder that this issue had no activity for 30 days.

[vrothberg]

I think that we should tackle it now and teach NewFromLocal(name string) to iterate the search registries for short names. That should even out the semantics across other commands.

@mtrmac, I can tackle it but I want your ACK on the idea.

[mtrmac]

Yes, I would love for NewFromLocal and pullGoalFromPossiblyUnqualifiedName to be consistent — and pullRefPair.dstRef values already are storage references, so it should not be very hard to do.

OTOH, read findImageInRepotags. IIRC I was last involved with that code only to preserve the existing behavior via suspiciousRefNameTagValuesForSearch, which also indicates my lack of understanding of the purpose of that code.

I would love for that to be replaced with something else, but if you want an ACK that a specific kind of replacement makes sense, I’m not the person to ask because I can only guess at goals of that search code; that might have to be tracked down the history, maybe all the way to atomic.

Whatever the goals of the search code, I have a strong suspicion that removing that search is going to break some users that incorrectly relied on those very loose matching semantics. That may well be worth it, but I want to make sure it’s a conscious decision.