-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 196
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
API support for managing and tracking artifact manifests in image indexes #1833
API support for managing and tracking artifact manifests in image indexes #1833
Conversation
e9a45be
to
bb77529
Compare
libimage/manifests/manifests.go
Outdated
if err != nil { | ||
return nil, fmt.Errorf("locating per-image directory for %s: %w", img.ID, err) | ||
} | ||
tmp, err := os.MkdirTemp(imgDirectory, "referenced-artifacts") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Magic string, should this be a constant?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Eh, maybe? Sure, changing it.
bb77529
to
16bfd55
Compare
LGTM |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: nalind, rhatdan The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
cb23f54
to
1ad13e9
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense to me overall.
(This is a not very careful review, notably particular I didn’t read the tests, and I’m not very familiar with the manifests
subpackage.)
...cts/blobs-only/blobs/sha256/579b4ca613dbc3017ec77e006dc9a275e074591d1c19b635e49aaf2dd07cfe3d
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ts/config-only/blobs/sha256/a9e451116eb9905a0017542bd15a5e2f7f6fbe57aefc2e9ee1232948637f6d82
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
} | ||
|
||
// Unless we were told what this is, use the default that ORAS uses. | ||
artifactType := "application/vnd.unknown.artifact.v1" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If this were entirely new, I’d be fairly strongly against making a habit of not caring about MIME types.
Given pre-existing practice, oh well… I still don’t like it but I must admit there might be a good case for it.
// which refers to the named file. The name will be passed to filepath.Abs() | ||
// before searching for an instance which references it. | ||
func (l *list) InstanceByFile(file string) (digest.Digest, error) { | ||
if parsedDigest, err := digest.Parse(file); err == nil { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it forbidden to use files named like that? (I am generally worried about strings that have different semantics purely based on contents, and) If so, it should be forbidden when adding the file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not explicitly, but if we misinterpret a filename as a digest, there's always the old "prepend a ./" thing people do when a file name starts with "-" option. I could easily be talked into adding a Stat() call, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I’m not sure why digest-looking file names are rejected at all; is that because some heuristic string parsing anticipated to happen at the CLI level?
Either way, the immediate consequence I am worried about is that AddArtifact(…., []string{"sha256:aaa…"})
, is AFAICS, currently accepted without protest, but a follow-up InstanceByFile("sha256:aaa…")
refuses to look for the file. That seems surprising.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My expectation is that remembering (or copying and pasting) digests for repeated calls to buildah manifest
is tiresome. I think that being able to describe which descriptor in the image index we want to modify by naming the thing that it refers might be easier.
That doesn't work as well if another index's contents were added using buildah manifest add --all
, since that doesn't create a reference to the other index so much as it copies that index's descriptor list into the index being modified, and we don't get information about what those descriptors refer to that we could stash in the instances
list to use this way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that being able to describe which descriptor in the image index we want to modify by naming the thing that it refers might be easier.
That makes sense to me.
I don’t immediately see how that relates to this code refusing to look for digest-named files. Is that because the CLI would try to parse the same CLI argument both ways? Even if that were the case, the way I think about it, either this is a CLI-only matter (the CLI can have that two-way heuristic, and the CLI can refuse to create digest-named files), or it is a mater explicitly supported by this lower layer, and then not only should InstanceByFile
refuse to search, but AddArtifact
should refuse to accept digest-named files.
Or do you mean that buildah manifest add --all
would create digest-named files, so they ~need to be allowed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, the related changes to the CLIs would hand the strings args they currently get to this method instead of only accepting digest values directly.
The manifest add --all
bit was a digression, mainly about how this doesn't provide any help for that case, since we don't have an image name or file name to match an incoming value against, so those instances would still have to be specified by digest.
I'm not completely sold on rejecting file names that look like digests outright, since there's no ambiguity when we're first adding them, but it does seem like it would be a rare case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we don't have an image name or file name to match an incoming value against
That .title
annotation mentioned elsewhere in this PR might work.
If the ./…
approach works for searching, I can live with the code as is… Aesthetically I’m not a fan, but, *shrug*
{ | ||
"schemaVersion": 2, | ||
"mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json", | ||
"artifactType": "application/vnd.example+type", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Which artifact type is supported? If I run a simple sample like this:
storeOpts, err := cstorage.DefaultStoreOptions()
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
store, err := cstorage.GetStore(storeOpts)
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
runtime, err := libimage.RuntimeFromStore(store, &libimage.RuntimeOptions{})
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
_, err = runtime.Pull(context.Background(), "quay.io/saschagrunert/seccomp:v1", commonconfig.PullPolicyAlways, &libimage.PullOptions{})
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
Then I get the panic:
panic: parsing image configuration: unsupported image-specific operation on artifact with type "application/vnd.unknown.artifact.v1"
The same for quay.io/saschagrunert/seccomp:v2
:
panic: parsing image configuration: unsupported image-specific operation on artifact with type "application/vnd.example+type"
Using commit 1ad13e9 and github.com/containers/image/v5 v5.29.3-0.20240131175401-a63f4a542670
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This PR doesn't do anything for pulling artifacts into local storage. Its main concern is adding the ability to craft artifact manifests for local files and add them to manifest lists, and broadening support for preserving information like artifactType
fields.
e12a405
to
c778520
Compare
// DeepCopyDescriptor copies a Descriptor, deeply copying its contents | ||
func DeepCopyDescriptor(original *v1.Descriptor) *v1.Descriptor { | ||
tmp := *original | ||
if original.URLs != nil { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(slices.Clone(nil) == nil
, so this check is not strictly necessary. Also elsewhere.
OTOH that behavior is intentional per a comment in the implementation, but not documented.)
...cts/blobs-only/blobs/sha256/579b4ca613dbc3017ec77e006dc9a275e074591d1c19b635e49aaf2dd07cfe3d
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
// which refers to the named file. The name will be passed to filepath.Abs() | ||
// before searching for an instance which references it. | ||
func (l *list) InstanceByFile(file string) (digest.Digest, error) { | ||
if parsedDigest, err := digest.Parse(file); err == nil { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that being able to describe which descriptor in the image index we want to modify by naming the thing that it refers might be easier.
That makes sense to me.
I don’t immediately see how that relates to this code refusing to look for digest-named files. Is that because the CLI would try to parse the same CLI argument both ways? Even if that were the case, the way I think about it, either this is a CLI-only matter (the CLI can have that two-way heuristic, and the CLI can refuse to create digest-named files), or it is a mater explicitly supported by this lower layer, and then not only should InstanceByFile
refuse to search, but AddArtifact
should refuse to accept digest-named files.
Or do you mean that buildah manifest add --all
would create digest-named files, so they ~need to be allowed?
c778520
to
33726ee
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM (still not a very careful review, and I didn’t read the tests)
libimage/manifests/manifests.go
Outdated
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Only set an ArtifactType for the layer if one was specified. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The code described by this comment is now gone.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Adjusted the comment.
Account for the presence of annotations in the OCI version of an index or list when deciding if the structure should be saved in OCI format. This requires removing an annotation from the test data so that the presence of "features" information for one of its instances will be the deciding factor. If we don't take those into account, setting annotations in the index doesn't force the index to be saved in OCI format, so even though none of the indicators that would force use of the Docker format are present, we effectively throw away those annotations by using Docker format anyway. Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <[email protected]>
Add methods for reading and writing the index-level "subject" field. Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <[email protected]>
... so that `nil` can be used to mark that we want to change the field in the image index as a whole rather than on one of the manifests that we're tracking. This is an API change. Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <[email protected]>
If an instance being added to a list has a non-empty ArtifactType value or a config.MediaType value that isn't one of the known kinds of image configuration blobs, don't try to parse the configuration blob to figure out the image's OS/Architecture/Variant information. Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <[email protected]>
Track information about artifacts for which we're managing the artifact manifests. Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <[email protected]>
When saving information about a list, use an ImageOptions structure to create the whole thing at once, and only save individual data piece by piece if we need to. Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <[email protected]>
Add an AddArtifact() method which will craft an artifact manifest which references one or more files and then add that manifest to the index. When we need to build a reference to a list that includes our artifact manifests, save the manifests and symlinks to their "layer" blobs along with the contents of inlined blobs in a per-image directory, and add references to those locations to the list of images we can search for manifests and blobs. Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <[email protected]>
When listing instances in an image index, show their artifact types and the names of any files that they're tracking. Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <[email protected]>
33726ee
to
af3f5ad
Compare
/lgtm |
This consists of multiple patches:
Account for the presence of annotations in the OCI version of an index or list when deciding if the structure should be saved in OCI format. This requires removing an annotation from the test data so that the presence of "features" information for one of its instances will be the deciding factor.
If we don't take those into account, setting annotations in the index doesn't force the index to be saved in OCI format, so even though none of the indicators that would force use of the Docker format are present, we effectively throw away those annotations by using Docker format anyway. I tried to skip a check on this field to avoid having to change the test data in pkg/manifests.list.preferOCI() learn about some new OCI fields #1816, but this problem forced the issue.
Add methods for reading and writing the index-level "subject" field. I'm not 100% sure we don't want to take an instanceDigest in these, in case a future version of the spec adds them as fields of the
Descriptor
type used for the items in the image index.... so that
nil
can be used to mark that we want to change the field in the image index as a whole rather than on one of the manifests that we're tracking.If an instance being added to a list has a non-empty ArtifactType value or a config.MediaType value that isn't one of the known kinds of image configuration blobs, don't try to parse the configuration blob to figure out the image's OS/Architecture/Variant information.
Track information about artifacts for which we're managing the artifact manifests.
When saving information about a list, use an ImageOptions structure to create the whole thing at once, and only save individual data piece by piece if we need to. Not strictly necessary, can be done later if it makes the review easier.
Add an AddArtifact() method which will craft an artifact manifest which references one or more files and then add that manifest to the index.
When we need to build a reference to a list that includes our artifact manifests, save the manifests and symlinks to their "layer" blobs in a per-image directory, and add references to those locations to the list of images we can search for manifests and blobs.