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

docker: tarfile: improve auto-decompression handling #427

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

docker: tarfile: improve auto-decompression handling #427

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

cyphar
Copy link
Contributor

@cyphar cyphar commented Mar 12, 2018

This matches how "docker load" deals with compressed images, as well as
being a general quality-of-life improvement over the previous error
messages we'd give. This also necessarily removes the previous
special-cased gzip handling, and adds support for auto-decompression for
streams as well.

For quite a while we were blocked on support xz decompression because it
effectively required shelling out to "unxz" (which is just bad in
general). However, there is now a library -- github.com/ulikunitz/xz --
which has implemented LZMA decompression in pure Go. It isn't as
featureful as liblzma (and only supports 1.0.4 of the specification) but
it is an improvement over not supporting xz at all. And since we aren't
using its writer implementation, we don't have to worry about sub-par
compression.

Tools like umoci will always compress layers, and in order to work
around some lovely issues with DiffIDs, tarfile.GetBlob would always
decompress them. However the BlobInfo returned from tarfile.GetBlob
would incorrectly give the size of the compressed layer because the
size caching code didn't actually check the layer size, resulting in
"skopeo copy" failing whenever sourcing umoci images.

Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai asarai@suse.de

@cyphar
Copy link
Contributor Author

cyphar commented Mar 12, 2018

This now includes fixes for docker copy docker-archive: being broken for images with compressed layers -- which caused images built with umoci breaking sometimes.

@cyphar cyphar changed the title docker: tarfile: support auto-decompression of source docker: tarfile: improve auto-decompression handling Mar 12, 2018
if err != nil {
return &Source{
tarPath: path,
}, nil
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(Just a quick question for now:) Is there an user who benefits from adding decompression support for streams? The only user of NewSourceFromStream in c/image processes the output of docker save, which is not compressed.

If there is no user, I’d rather leave the decompression exclusive to NewSourceFromFile, or rewrite the code in another way to preserve the property that NewSourceFromFile on an uncompressed file doesn’t make an unnecessary (and pretty costly) copy.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you want, I can rework this so that it just uses the original file if it is uncompressed (I actually missed that the code did this when I deleted this hunk -- oops!).

But I don't see the negative of adding it to the stream implementation. The uncompressed path for streams is basically identical to the compressed path (minus the overhead of reading 5 bytes rather than using bufio for the entire read -- which isn't a significant overhead. So adding it to the stream implementation just means that containers/image users can stream compressed archives directly to c/image rather than making two copies.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So adding it to the stream implementation just means that containers/image users can stream compressed archives directly to c/image rather than making two copies.

This does not actually change that, because docker-archive: always calls NewSourceFromFile (docker/tarball is an internal helper, not a transport with its own ImageReference that could be used via copy.Image). Which is why was asking about an user who benefits.

Sure, this does not hurt, and the consistency in the API is nice :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was thinking more about users who might want to use docker/tarball but there are probably no such users. Anyway, I've fixed up the code to now no longer make a copy if the archive is already uncompressed.

@cyphar
Copy link
Contributor Author

cyphar commented Mar 14, 2018

Fixed up the real test failure. Now test-skopeo is failing because it doesn't vendor the new xz library. How should we proceed @mtrmac?

@umohnani8
Copy link
Member

@cyphar https://github.com/projectatomic/skopeo#contributing tells how to fix the breaking skopeo tests and test them.

Copy link
Collaborator

@mtrmac mtrmac left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK overall.

The need to decompress layers only to count the size is awkward, but not obviously avoidable—building a manifest with the compressed digests, and having to compute them, is not better.

Closing the gzip stream is the only outstanding comment. (It would be unreasonable to block this PR on using DetectCompression when the design of that is incorrect, but I think it’s fair to block this on designing AutoDecompress correctly. Still, maybe we can get away with ignoring the issue anyway. @runcom ?)

@@ -15,13 +15,12 @@ import (

func TestDetectCompression(t *testing.T) {
cases := []struct {
filename string
unimplemented bool
filename string
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(Non-blocking: This could become a []string.)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It could, but I prefered the c.filename as it's more descriptive (and makes the diff smaller). But I could switch it if you prefer.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, this is fine as well.

return &Source{
tarPath: path,
}, nil
}
defer reader.Close()
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, it turns out that gzip.NewReader returns a ReadCloser, and the caller is expected to really Close the stream; the compression.DetectCompression implementation missed that.

Luckily(?) the gzip.Reader.Close() is (currently?) trivial, it only returns an error value which Read() would AFAICT would have returned anyway as long as the consumer is reading until EOF.

But that complicates the AutoDecompress design; should it wrap uncompressed inputs in NopCloser? Should it return a separate close callback instead of modifying the io.Reader stream (like dirImageMockWithRef does)?

Or do we just pretend that gzip.Reader.Close does not exist? :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We could change the API to return an io.ReadCloser. Since io.Readerio.ReadCloser there shouldn't be a problem with any users of the interface (aside from the downside they probably won't notice they should call Close now).

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

… and that

reader =defer reader.Close()
reader, … = AutoDecompress(…)
defer reader.Close() // Again!

is unintuitive. But then none of the alternatives I can think of are any more elegant.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe, but if you compare it to gzip.NewReader you have to do a similar thing.

reader := ...
defer reader.Close()
reader2, ... := gzip.NewReader(reader)
defer reader2.Close()

We could work around it by doing some very dodgy .(io.Closer) handling in order to still allow users to pass io.Readers that don't have a hidden Close() method. But that's probably what you were thinking when you said that you can't think of any more elegant workarounds. 😉

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The unintuitive part, to me, is that with raw gzip, there is reader.Close() and reader2.Close(); with AutoDecompress, there would be two reader.Close()s, which looks pretty similar to a copy&paste bug.

But I still can’t think of a much better API.

reader =defer reader.Close()
reader, close, … = AutoDecompress(…)
defer close()

does not look noticeably better.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For the moment I'm just going to ignore the close method for gzip if that's okay with you. Otherwise we'd have to NopCloser most of the other functions, and DetectCompression's signature would look wrong.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I’m not really happy to ignore resource cleanup and error detection, no. It’s a time bomb, and doing the right thing seems plausible.

I can take on the work of updating the existing compression package and its users, if you don’t want to deal with the rest of c/image as part of this PR (apart from updating it to use the new API).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Alright, in that case I'll work on doing that tomorrow.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll work on fixing this up today.

if err != nil {
return nil, errors.Wrapf(err, "auto-decompress %s to find size", h.Name)
}
rawSize := h.Size
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(uncompressedSize perhaps? raw suggests to me the original, i.e. ”not decompressed”.)

@cyphar
Copy link
Contributor Author

cyphar commented Mar 16, 2018

@umohnani8 Oh, so we still haven't sorted that problem out (it's been a problem for more than a year now -- and there were PRs posted that were supposed to resolve this issue). That's a shame.

@mtrmac
Copy link
Collaborator

mtrmac commented Mar 16, 2018

@umohnani8 Oh, so we still haven't sorted that problem out (it's been a problem for more than a year now -- and there were PRs posted that were supposed to resolve this issue). That's a shame.

I can’t remember PRs for that, am I misremembering?

The coupling with skopeo tests has been added intentionally at a time when we were changing the c/image API so frequently, and without noticing that skopeo needs updating, that we didn't have a fresh skopeo build for about a month.

Now that the churn has settled a bit (but we do still break the API), and more importantly there are a few other prominent users of c/image, maybe we could reconsider that tradeoff… though I’m not exactly sure in which direction. Actually document and commit to a subset of API to be stable? That would probably still be a very small subset.

@cyphar
Copy link
Contributor Author

cyphar commented Mar 18, 2018

@mtrmac This all happened more than a year ago, it took me a while to find the PRs. Here's the ones I could find:

The idea was to see if we could run the integration tests as part of skopeo so that we didn't have to run test-skopeo here -- and instead we would gate things on skopeo PRs. But I'm not sure how good of an idea that is in retrospect.

The main problem with test-skopeo is when you have to touch vendor.conf -- which is an outlier, but is an outlier that I've hit more often than you would expect. 😉

@mtrmac
Copy link
Collaborator

mtrmac commented Mar 22, 2018

(

The idea was to see if we could run the integration tests as part of skopeo so that we didn't have to run test-skopeo here -- and instead we would gate things on skopeo PRs. But I'm not sure how good of an idea that is in retrospect.

At that point in the past, skopeo was IIRC the only known user, so breaking skopeo made the two repos rather pointless—and we were broken due to c/image changing its API frequently most of the time. So, test-skopeo was introduced to ensure that whoever changed the c/image API also immediately prepared a skopeo update and the breakage would last for about an hour instead of a week. The cost of ~30 minutes for the extra "DO NOT MERGE" version and Ci run was well worth it at the time.

c/image is now breaking the API a bit less, so maybe the tradeoff is no longer that compelling. Also, with umoci, Nix, libpod, buildah, and maybe other users, it is unclear whether treating skopeo specially is reasonable.

Ideally, of course, c/image would not break API ever, but with things like #431 incoming, I don’t think we are ready to pay the price of that commitment yet—or I haven’t heard that the demand is strong enough so far.

)


Anyway, in this particular case, I’m fine with skipping the ”do not merge” temp-PR, we can with reasonable confidence expect that this will just work, so that PR can be prepared after merging this one.

For me, this PR blocks only on closing the gzip.Reader.

@mtrmac
Copy link
Collaborator

mtrmac commented Mar 22, 2018

(

c/image is now breaking the API a bit less, so maybe the tradeoff is no longer that compelling.

One more aspect of this is that c/image does not have any real integration tests; those are all in skopeo. We could just move them, but then skopeo would be missing tests, and maintaining two sets, differing only in whether a functionality is invoked from Go or from a CLI, is a bit wasteful.
)

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Jun 1, 2018

@cyphar Needs a rebase, if you are still interested in adding this PR.

@cyphar
Copy link
Contributor Author

cyphar commented Jun 4, 2018

Yes, I will revive this PR as it has broken skopeo-umoci interactions several times in the past.

For quite a while we were blocked on support xz decompression because it
effectively required shelling out to "unxz" (which is just bad in
general). However, there is now a library -- github.com/ulikunitz/xz --
which has implemented LZMA decompression in pure Go. It isn't as
featureful as liblzma (and only supports 1.0.4 of the specification) but
it is an improvement over not supporting xz at all. And since we aren't
using its writer implementation, we don't have to worry about sub-par
compression.

Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>
Most users of DetectCompression will use the decompressorFunc
immediately afterwards (the only exception is the copy package). Wrap
up this boilerplate in AutoDecompress, so it can be used elsewhere.

Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>
This matches how "docker load" deals with compressed images, as well as
being a general quality-of-life improvement over the previous error
messages we'd give. This also necessarily removes the previous
special-cased gzip handling, and adds support for auto-decompression for
streams as well.

Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>
Tools like umoci will always compress layers, and in order to work
around some *lovely* issues with DiffIDs, tarfile.GetBlob would always
decompress them. However the BlobInfo returned from tarfile.GetBlob
would incorrectly give the size of the *compressed* layer because the
size caching code didn't actually check the layer size, resulting in
"skopeo copy" failing whenever sourcing umoci images.

As an aside, for some reason the oci: transport doesn't report errors
when the size is wrong...

Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>
@cyphar
Copy link
Contributor Author

cyphar commented Jun 6, 2018

Rebased and containers/skopeo#516 is the test PR.

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Jun 16, 2018

@cyphar Tests are failing?

@cyphar
Copy link
Contributor Author

cyphar commented Jun 16, 2018

@rhatdan It's because I've added a new vendor which means we need a skopeo PR to test it (which I've already done in containers/skopeo#516) -- so we'll have to merge with the tests failing. But at the moment I'm fixing up the auto-decompression API to use a ReadCloser.

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Jul 12, 2018

@cyphar Needs a rebase.
@mtrmac PTAL

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Jul 12, 2018

@cyphar this is blocking us from fixing a couple of issues in podman.

@mtrmac
Copy link
Collaborator

mtrmac commented Jul 14, 2018

@mtrmac PTAL

@rhatdan #481 ; the docker-archive: handling is completely untested yet, feel free to try with your use cases if I don’t get to this first.

@mtrmac
Copy link
Collaborator

mtrmac commented Jul 17, 2018

This was finished in #481. Thanks again!

@mtrmac mtrmac closed this Jul 17, 2018
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.

4 participants