Bug 1345820

Summary: atomic mount can't recognize image ID of docker format
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Reporter: Alex Jia <ajia>
Component: atomicAssignee: Brent Baude <bbaude>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: atomic-bugs <atomic-bugs>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.4CC: dwalsh
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: Extras
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-04 09:06:12 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Alex Jia 2016-06-13 09:08:01 UTC
Description of problem:
Atomic mount can't recognize image ID of docker format, but atomic info works well, IMO, we should have a unified process of dealing with image ID.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
# rpm -q atomic docker python-docker-py
atomic-1.10.5-3.el7.x86_64
docker-1.10.3-40.el7.x86_64
python-docker-py-1.7.2-1.el7.noarch

# cat /etc/redhat-release 
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.2 (Maipo)


How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. docker images 
2. atomic mount <image id> /mnt


Actual results:

# docker images registry.access.redhat.com/rhel7
REPOSITORY                         TAG                 IMAGE ID            CREATED             SIZE
registry.access.redhat.com/rhel7   latest              bf2034427837        5 weeks ago         203.4 MB

# atomic mount bf2034427837 /mnt
bf2034427837 did not match any image or container.

# atomic images | grep registry.access.redhat.com/rhel7   
> registry.access.redhat.com/rhel7                      latest   sha256:bf203   2016-05-05 12:43   203.43 MB 

# atomic mount sha256:bf203 /mnt
# df | grep mnt
/dev/dm-7              10474496  1063204   9411292  11% /var/lib/docker/devicemapper/mnt/b819aabce2ecd69cacec05b0cd10344a3251234b218a0783dea749d022bc9107
/dev/dm-8              10474496   228804  10245692   3% /mnt

# atomic umount /mnt


Expected results:


Additional info:

# atomic info bf2034427837
Image Name: registry.access.redhat.com/rhel7:latest
Vendor: Red Hat, Inc.
Name: rhel7/rhel
Build_Host: rcm-img03.build.eng.bos.redhat.com
Version: 7.2
Architecture: x86_64
Release: 61
BZComponent: rhel-server-docker
Authoritative_Registry: registry.access.redhat.com

# atomic info sha256:bf203
Image Name: sha256:bf203
Vendor: Red Hat, Inc.
Name: rhel7/rhel
Build_Host: rcm-img03.build.eng.bos.redhat.com
Version: 7.2
Architecture: x86_64
Release: 61
BZComponent: rhel-server-docker
Authoritative_Registry: registry.access.redhat.com

Comment 2 Daniel Walsh 2016-08-26 15:46:57 UTC
Is this still an issue in atomic-1.11?

Comment 3 Daniel Walsh 2016-08-26 15:48:27 UTC
Works for me in Fedora.

Fixed in atomic-1.11

Comment 4 Alex Jia 2016-08-29 16:03:34 UTC
the same issue is in atomic-1.10.5-7.el7.x86_64 and wait for atomic-1.11.

Comment 5 Alex Jia 2016-08-29 16:45:13 UTC
It works well on latest upstream atomic.

[root@dhcp-2-50 atomic]# git rev-parse HEAD
70c51001c07311aec1b72079e9c1917af80bcd3c

Comment 6 Daniel Walsh 2016-08-29 17:18:51 UTC
So you are saying this is broken on atomic-1.11 but seems to be fixed in atomic-1.12-devel?

Comment 7 Alex Jia 2016-08-30 00:48:08 UTC
(In reply to Daniel Walsh from comment #6)
> So you are saying this is broken on atomic-1.11 but seems to be fixed in
> atomic-1.12-devel?

I mean it works on upstream master branch, the current commit id is 70c51001, I'm not sure if it's atomic-1.11 or atomic-1.12-devel, BTW, I can't find a atomic-1.11 in RHELAH or RHEL now, so I need to wait a new 1.11 build on RHELAH or RHEL.

Comment 9 Alex Jia 2016-09-18 03:22:13 UTC
(In reply to Daniel Walsh from comment #3)
> Works for me in Fedora.
> 
> Fixed in atomic-1.11

Daniel, there is no atomic-1.11 RPM package in RHEL7, it works well in atomic-1.12.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm, so it should be fix in atomic-1.12.

Comment 11 errata-xmlrpc 2016-11-04 09:06:12 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016-2628.html