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.