I believe this to either be an issue w/ the format of the docker secret being created, or it not being properly supplied to the registry with the pull request, I do not believe it is an actual issue w/ registry authentication.

issues tracked in origin : https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/17197

master is fixed in https://github.com/openshift/origin/pull/18003
3.8 is not affected
3.7 is fixed in https://github.com/openshift/origin/pull/18062

Moved to MODIFIED, as new puddles are not built out.

Tested on:
oc v3.9.0-0.22.0
kubernetes v1.9.1+a0ce1bc657
features: Basic-Auth GSSAPI Kerberos SPNEGO

Server https://qe-geliu-39privatemen-1.westus.cloudapp.azure.com:8443
openshift v3.9.0-0.22.0
kubernetes v1.9.1+a0ce1bc657


1. oc create secret docker-registry haowang1 --docker-email=*** --docker-user-name=*** --docker-password=** 
 Works as expected.
2. oc secrets new haowang2 .dockerconfigjson=/home/haoran/.docker/config.json 
 Also works as expected
3. oc secrets new-dockercfg haowang --docker-email=*** --docker-user-name=*** --docker-password=** 
This is totally not worked

Thanks, good catch. I've fixed it in https://github.com/openshift/origin/pull/18226.

Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/openshift/origin

https://github.com/openshift/origin/commit/1a849c6d6e31c1d7977c53e4e2514fa07f68dcd9
Merge pull request #18226 from soltysh/bug1531511

Automatic merge from submit-queue.

Fix oc secrets new-dockercfg to create secret identical like oc create secret

It looks like I missed one more create secret thing. Fixes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1531511

/assign @juanvallejo

Will verify this in next puddle

It works well with:
oc v3.9.0-0.34.0
kubernetes v1.9.1+a0ce1bc657
features: Basic-Auth GSSAPI Kerberos SPNEGO

Server https://host-8-243-252.host.centralci.eng.rdu2.redhat.com:8443
openshift v3.9.0-0.34.0
kubernetes v1.9.1+a0ce1bc657



I but still have some concerns, the "oc secrets new-dockercfg" cmd was originally create a .dockercfg secret source, but now it's .dockerconfig source, does that mean we will not support the old secret type? If you guys are intended to this, I will move to verify.

That is correct. This is the direction upstream is going as well.

*** Bug 1529867 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2018:0489

See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476330 for details about 3.7.z fix.