Harbor-registry Secret Is Broken When ExistingSecret Is Set

by ADMIN 60 views

Introduction

In this article, we will discuss a critical issue with the Harbor registry secret when an existing secret is set. The problem arises from a regression in the Harbor chart, which was introduced between versions 20.1.1 and 24.3.3. This issue affects users who supply their own pre-existing secrets, as the chart still attempts to create a harbor-registry secret with default values. We will explore the root cause of this problem and discuss potential solutions to resolve it.

Background

The Harbor chart is a widely used tool for deploying and managing Harbor instances. It provides a convenient way to set up and configure Harbor, including the creation of registry secrets. However, in version 24.3.3, a regression was introduced that affects users who supply their own pre-existing secrets.

The Problem

When an existing secret is set, the chart still attempts to create a harbor-registry secret with default values. This is evident from the following code snippet:

registry:
  existingSecret: harbor-configurator-registry-htpasswd
  tls:
    existingSecret: harbor-registry-internal-tls

Despite the existing secret being set, the chart creates a harbor-registry secret with the following content:

data:
  REGISTRY_HTPASSWD: ++++++++
  REGISTRY_HTTP_SECRET: ++++++++
  REGISTRY_REDIS_PASSWORD: ++++++++

This behavior is unexpected and can lead to issues with the Harbor instance, as the default values may not match the actual values used in the existing secret.

Root Cause

The root cause of this problem lies in the Harbor chart's logic for handling existing secrets. When an existing secret is set, the chart should not attempt to create a new harbor-registry secret. However, due to a regression, the chart still creates a new secret with default values.

Impact

This issue affects users who supply their own pre-existing secrets, as they may experience issues with their Harbor instance. The chart's behavior can lead to out-of-sync warnings, as the default values may not match the actual values used in the existing secret.

Solution

To resolve this issue, the Harbor chart needs to be updated to correctly handle existing secrets. The chart should not attempt to create a new harbor-registry secret when an existing secret is set. Instead, it should use the existing secret's values.

Workaround

Until the chart is updated, users can use a workaround to resolve this issue. They can create a custom values file that sets the existingSecret field to an empty string. This will prevent the chart from creating a new harbor-registry secret.

Example

Here is an example of a custom values file that sets the existingSecret field to an empty string:

registry:
  existingSecret: ""
  tls:
    existingSecret: harbor-registry-internal-tls

By using this workaround, users can avoid the issue with the harbor-registry secret being created with default values.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Harbor registry secret is broken when an existing secret is set. This issue arises from a regression in the Harbor chart, which was introduced between versions 20.1.1 and 24.3.3. The chart's behavior can lead to out-of-sync warnings and issues with the Harbor instance. To resolve this issue, the chart needs to be updated to correctly handle existing secrets. Until then, users can use a workaround to avoid the issue.

Recommendations

Based on our analysis, we recommend the following:

  • Update the Harbor chart to correctly handle existing secrets.
  • Provide a clear and concise error message when an existing secret is set, but the chart still attempts to create a new harbor-registry secret.
  • Consider adding a feature to allow users to specify a custom harbor-registry secret, rather than relying on the chart's default behavior.

Future Work

In the future, we plan to:

  • Investigate the root cause of this issue and provide a detailed explanation of the chart's behavior.
  • Collaborate with the Harbor chart maintainers to update the chart and resolve this issue.
  • Provide additional guidance and resources to help users resolve this issue.

Acknowledgments

Introduction

In our previous article, we discussed a critical issue with the Harbor registry secret when an existing secret is set. The problem arises from a regression in the Harbor chart, which was introduced between versions 20.1.1 and 24.3.3. In this article, we will provide a Q&A section to help users understand the issue and its implications.

Q: What is the root cause of this issue?

A: The root cause of this issue lies in the Harbor chart's logic for handling existing secrets. When an existing secret is set, the chart should not attempt to create a new harbor-registry secret. However, due to a regression, the chart still creates a new secret with default values.

Q: How does this issue affect users?

A: This issue affects users who supply their own pre-existing secrets, as they may experience issues with their Harbor instance. The chart's behavior can lead to out-of-sync warnings, as the default values may not match the actual values used in the existing secret.

Q: What are the implications of this issue?

A: The implications of this issue are significant, as it can lead to issues with the Harbor instance, including out-of-sync warnings and potential security vulnerabilities.

Q: How can users resolve this issue?

A: Users can resolve this issue by using a workaround, which involves creating a custom values file that sets the existingSecret field to an empty string. This will prevent the chart from creating a new harbor-registry secret.

Q: What is the recommended solution?

A: The recommended solution is to update the Harbor chart to correctly handle existing secrets. This will ensure that the chart does not attempt to create a new harbor-registry secret when an existing secret is set.

Q: How can users provide feedback on this issue?

A: Users can provide feedback on this issue by submitting a bug report to the Harbor chart maintainers. This will help to ensure that the issue is addressed and resolved in a timely manner.

Q: What are the next steps for resolving this issue?

A: The next steps for resolving this issue involve collaborating with the Harbor chart maintainers to update the chart and resolve the issue. We will also provide additional guidance and resources to help users resolve this issue.

Q: How can users stay up-to-date on the latest developments?

A: Users can stay up-to-date on the latest developments by following the Harbor chart maintainers on GitHub and subscribing to the Harbor chart newsletter.

Q: What are the potential consequences of not resolving this issue?

A: The potential consequences of not resolving this issue include continued issues with the Harbor instance, including out-of-sync warnings and potential security vulnerabilities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Harbor registry secret is broken when an existing secret is set. This issue arises from a regression in the Harbor chart, which was introduced between versions 20.1.1 and 24.3.3. The chart's behavior can lead to out-of-sync warnings and issues with the Harbor instance. To resolve this issue, users can use a workaround, and the recommended solution is to update the Harbor chart to correctly handle existing secrets.

Recommendations

Based on our analysis, we recommend the following:

  • Update the Harbor chart to correctly handle existing secrets.
  • Provide a clear and concise error message when an existing secret is set, but the chart still attempts to create a new harbor-registry secret.
  • Consider adding a feature to allow users to specify a custom harbor-registry secret, rather than relying on the chart's default behavior.

Future Work

In the future, we plan to:

  • Investigate the root cause of this issue and provide a detailed explanation of the chart's behavior.
  • Collaborate with the Harbor chart maintainers to update the chart and resolve this issue.
  • Provide additional guidance and resources to help users resolve this issue.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank @jdaln for their contributions to this article. Their feedback and insights were invaluable in helping us understand the root cause of this issue.