Skip to content
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

Support index manifest to push multi-arch container images #2087

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

Support index manifest to push multi-arch container images #2087

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented May 14, 2022

PR Checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
  • Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

  • Bugfix
  • Feature
  • Code style update (formatting, local variables)
  • Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
  • Build related changes
  • CI related changes
  • Documentation content changes
  • Other... Please describe:

What is the current behavior?

The rule container_push is able to push a single container to a registry but isn't able to push a multi-arch containers, aka index or fat manifest.

The specification of an index manifest can be found here:

Issue Number: #1599

What is the new behavior?

I add a new rule named container_push_index to push a multi-arch containers.

This new rule can be used like that:

load( "@io_bazel_rules_docker//container:container.bzl", "container_push_index")

container_push_index(
    name = "push_all",
    format = "Docker",
    images = {
        "//:my_image_amd64": "linux/amd64",
        "//:my_image_arm64": "linux/arm64/v8",
        "//:my_image_ppc64le": "linux/ppc64le",
    },
    registry = "localhost:5000",
    repository = "docker/test",
    tag = "{VERSION}",
)

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

  • Yes
  • No

The container_push rule is not impacted and still works fine as always.

@ghost ghost requested review from gravypod, linzhp, pcj, smukherj1 and uhthomas as code owners May 14, 2022 12:46
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented May 17, 2022

We could improve this new rule container_push_index to use a transition to avoid to explicitly specify the list of image targets to push, like this:

load( "@io_bazel_rules_docker//container:container.bzl", "container_push_index")

container_push_index(
    name = "push_all",
    format = "Docker",
    image = "//:my_image",
    platforms: [
        "linux/amd64",
        "linux/arm64/v8",
        "linux/ppc64le",
    ],
    registry = "localhost:5000",
    repository = "docker/test",
    tag = "{VERSION}",
)

Where image attribute is a target created by container_image.

But this improvement requires before several modifications as suggested in #2073.

@aw185176
Copy link

Regarding using transitions: one benefit of not doing so, and allowing explicitly wiring up multiple images is that it enables non-traditional use cases such as storing things like K8s manifests (or binaries, or WASM artifacts, etc). I am not sure using transitions is worth losing the flexibility for other use cases.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented May 17, 2022

As I said on Slack, we can keep the images attribute to keep the possibility to explicitly give the list of images to push.

We're able to keep the two differents ways:

  • The images attribute to explicitly give the list of images to push.
  • The image + platforms attributes to use a transition to define the list of images to push.

And:

  • images and image will be mutually exclusive.
  • platforms will be mandatory if image is given.
  • One of these two attributes betwwen image or images must be defined.

@nadavwe
Copy link

nadavwe commented Sep 21, 2022

hey @lbcjbb, this is super useful!
Why is that hanging since May? anything holding it back?

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Sep 21, 2022

Hi. This project needs new maintainers as mentionened in this discussion #2038

@nadavwe
Copy link

nadavwe commented Sep 21, 2022

oh... but I see @uhthomas and @linzhp volunteered to be maintainers now...

@drewcsillagdd
Copy link

So does this actually have maintainers now?

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Oct 18, 2022

giphy

@samruthr
Copy link

This is a very useful addition to the rule. How can we get attention to this PR?

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 18, 2022

I don't know :/

@uhthomas
Copy link
Collaborator

I can take a look soon :)

@samruthr
Copy link

Hi @uhthomas, just checking in, have you had an opportunity to take a look?

Copy link
Collaborator

@uhthomas uhthomas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So, I think this looks mostly fine. Just a few code comments. With respect to the code itself, is it possible to unit test some of this to avoid regressions?

I also had another topic I want to discuss. How does this fit into transitions? Is this compatible with a single target which could transition to different target platforms?

Sorry for the delay.

container/go/cmd/digester_index/digester_index.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
container/go/cmd/digester_index/digester_index.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
container/go/cmd/digester_index/digester_index.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
container/go/cmd/digester_index/digester_index.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
container/go/cmd/digester_index/digester_index.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
container/go/pkg/compat/image_index.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
container/go/pkg/compat/image_index.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
container/go/pkg/compat/image_index.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
container/go/pkg/compat/image_index.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
container/go/pkg/compat/image_index.go Show resolved Hide resolved
These components will also be used by the 'index' version
of the pusher binary.

- The function to check and initialize the docker client configuration.

- The function to compute the list of options to give to remote.Write*()
  functions.

  We now use three new options:
   - remote.WithContext() to make the push cancellable.
   - remote.WithUserAgent() to help the registry to known the origin of
     requests.
   - remote.WithJobs() to define the number of parralel jobs to use.
     We give the value returned by runtime.NumCPU() to override
     the hardcoded value in the library go-containerregistry which is 4.
The main goal of this refactoring is to make available several
functions. These functions will be used by the 'index' version
of the `container_push` rule.

Unless I am mistaken, the code is exactly the same.
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Jan 14, 2023

Thank you very much for the review @uhthomas ❤️.

For all comments related to the Go errors 1.13 (the use of %w), it's maybe better to make this change in another pull request, to migrate all the Go code of this repository.

  • All this new code is already covered by E2E tests, but I take a look to also add several unit tests. ✅

I also had another topic I want to discuss. How does this fit into transitions? Is this compatible with a single target which could transition to different target platforms?

If I recall, i don't think. But we will be able to easily add this feature.

@ghost ghost requested review from uhthomas and removed request for pcj, linzhp, gravypod and smukherj1 January 14, 2023 21:10
@loeffel-io
Copy link

loeffel-io commented Jan 27, 2023

@uhthomas please 🙏

Copy link

@Topher-the-Geek Topher-the-Geek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's some issue in digester_index.

On Mac OS Ventura 13.1, Intel chip: I give up waiting after 10 minutes. digester_index is the top CPU consumer that whole time.

On Ubuntu 20.04 in a container run on K8S, x86_64: digester_index is killed after about 3 minutes.

To reproduce, I put together a simple build that merely repackages the NGINX container.

BUILD

load("@io_bazel_rules_docker//container:container.bzl", "container_push_index")

container_push_index(
    name = "push-all",
    format = "Docker",
    images = {
        "@nginx-linux-amd64//image": "linux/amd64",
        "@nginx-linux-arm64v8//image": "linux/arm64/v8",
    },
    registry = "<my private repo>.amazonaws.com",
    repository = "test",
    stamp = "@io_bazel_rules_docker//stamp:always",
    tag = "latest"
)

pr2087.patch

diff --git a/container/push.bzl b/container/push.bzl
index 9be8d89..83b8b96 100644
--- a/container/push.bzl
+++ b/container/push.bzl
@@ -282,6 +282,7 @@ def _container_push_index_impl(ctx):
             stamp = ctx.attr.stamp[StampSettingInfo].value,
             format = ctx.attr.format,
             skip_unchanged_digest = ctx.attr.skip_unchanged_digest,
+            insecure_repository = ctx.attr.insecure_repository
         ),
     )
 

(That final blank line is important)

WORKSPACE

workspace(
    name = "pr2087",
)

load("@bazel_tools//tools/build_defs/repo:http.bzl", "http_archive")

http_archive(
    name = "bazel_skylib",
    sha256 = "74d544d96f4a5bb630d465ca8bbcfe231e3594e5aae57e1edbf17a6eb3ca2506",
    urls = [
        "https://mirror.bazel.build/github.com/bazelbuild/bazel-skylib/releases/download/1.3.0/bazel-skylib-1.3.0.tar.gz",
        "https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel-skylib/releases/download/1.3.0/bazel-skylib-1.3.0.tar.gz",
    ],
)

load("@bazel_skylib//:workspace.bzl", "bazel_skylib_workspace")

bazel_skylib_workspace()

RULES_DOCKER_VERSION = "c079c0ddad54d34205c0a94fbb7cf9c6e7a6f48b"

http_archive(
    name = "io_bazel_rules_docker",
    patch_args = ["-p1"],
    patches = [
        "//:pr2087.patch",
    ],
    strip_prefix = "bazel-rules_docker-%s" % RULES_DOCKER_VERSION,
    type = "zip",
    url = "https://github.com/leboncoin/bazel-rules_docker/archive/%s.zip" % RULES_DOCKER_VERSION,
)

load("@io_bazel_rules_docker//repositories:repositories.bzl", container_repositories = "repositories")

container_repositories()

load("@io_bazel_rules_docker//repositories:deps.bzl", container_deps = "deps")

container_deps()

load("@io_bazel_rules_docker//container:container.bzl", "container_pull")

# https://hub.docker.com/_/nginx
# 1.23.3-alpine

container_pull(
    name = "nginx-linux-amd64",
    digest = "sha256:c1b9fe3c0c015486cf1e4a0ecabe78d05864475e279638e9713eb55f013f907f",  
    registry = "index.docker.io",
    repository = "library/nginx",
)

container_pull(
    name = "nginx-linux-arm64v8",
    digest = "sha256:5fbf2392cd98bf322ff24e5de9a74e732ebeb4873c06f29ed801b2bed1b11019",  
    registry = "index.docker.io",
    repository = "library/nginx",
)

container/push.bzl Show resolved Hide resolved
@Topher-the-Geek
Copy link

I forgot: That's with Bazel 6.0.0

I add the new rule `container_push_index` to push a docker image multi
platforms.

We can use this new rule like this:

  container_push_index(
      name = "push_index",
      format = "Docker",
      images = {
          "//:my_image_amd64": "linux/amd64",
          "//:my_image_arm64": "linux/arm/v6",
          "//:my_image_ppc64le": "ppc64le",
      },
      registry = "localhost:5000",
      repository = "docker/myimage",
      tag = "{STABLE_VERSION}",
  )
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Jan 30, 2023

@Topher-the-Geek It's now fixed. Sorry for this stupid mistake. You can apply this patch in your test workspace:

diff --git a/WORKSPACE b/WORKSPACE
index 2e1ba82..91b5101 100644
--- a/WORKSPACE
+++ b/WORKSPACE
@@ -17,14 +17,10 @@ load("@bazel_skylib//:workspace.bzl", "bazel_skylib_workspace")
 
 bazel_skylib_workspace()
 
-RULES_DOCKER_VERSION = "c079c0ddad54d34205c0a94fbb7cf9c6e7a6f48b"
+RULES_DOCKER_VERSION = "19d30777c526fe9986e1a19b49324beb34537ce0"
 
 http_archive(
     name = "io_bazel_rules_docker",
-    patch_args = ["-p1"],
-    patches = [
-        "//:pr2087.patch",
-    ],
     strip_prefix = "bazel-rules_docker-%s" % RULES_DOCKER_VERSION,
     type = "zip",
     url = "https://github.com/leboncoin/bazel-rules_docker/archive/%s.zip" % RULES_DOCKER_VERSION,

@Topher-the-Geek
Copy link

Thanks for the quick fix @lbcjbb. For me, this is working as advertised. I'm not an owner of this repo tho, so we still need @uhthomas

@tgeng
Copy link

tgeng commented Feb 15, 2023

What does it take to get this merged? @uhthomas can you give an update?

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Feb 15, 2023

What does it take to get this merged?

I don't known. Maybe just some time to review, or find new maintainers of this repository (#2038).

@ghost ghost closed this Jul 5, 2023
@ghost ghost deleted the feature/multi-arch-container-push branch July 5, 2023 20:31
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants