Secret Management #27794

ehazlett · 2016-10-26T18:01:54Z

This adds support for the new Secret API in Swarmkit (moby/swarmkit#1567). This adds commands (create, inspect, ls, rm) for managing secrets in a Swarm cluster. This is currently for Swarm mode only as the backing store is Swarm and as such is only for Linux. This is the foundation for future secret support in Docker with potential improvements such as Windows support, different backing stores, etc.

This takes the ideas and collective recommendations from #13490 to set the groundwork. It exposes a file system based interface for secret access. The engine creates a tmpfs and mounts it in container (/run/secrets). A file is created for each secret that is assigned to the service. For example, if a secret named "ssh-dev" with a target of "id_rsa" is assigned to the service, a file with the secret contents will be created at /run/secrets/id_rsa.

TODO:

~~Service update support to add / rm secrets from a service~~
~~User facing docs~~
~~More tests~~
~~Depends on Fixed bug in secrets assignment, added logging swarmkit#1697~~

Examples (these will be turned into user docs):

Create a Secret:

$> cat test_key | docker secret create ssh-dev
qluh2o4xbvtu8rhvz0hueyeou

Create a Service with a Secret

$> docker service create --name nginx --secret ssh-dev nginx
t9kwy2v04l7zl3hl9dlvt5vq0

We can then check the created container for the secret:

$> docker exec -ti 06 mount | grep tmpfs
...
tmpfs on /run/secrets type tmpfs (ro,relatime)

$> docker exec -ti 06 cat /run/secrets/id_rsa
-----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
MIIEpAIBAAKCAQEA2Xz+yHs5pDgeCyv7ul10MkSYcAu79sRBh/VNGXBPMW1QbBcJ
...

Create with full options

$> docker service create --name nginx --secret source=ssh-dev,target=id_rsa,uid=1000,gid=1000,mode=0400 nginx
t9kwy2v04l7zl3hl9dlvt5vq0

LK4D4 · 2016-10-26T18:16:27Z

daemon/cluster/convert/container.go

+	refs := []*swarmapi.SecretReference{}
+	for _, s := range sr {
+		var mode swarmapi.SecretReference_Mode
+		switch s.Mode {


Redundant switch. IMO should be

mode := swarmapi.SecretReference_FILE if s.Mode == types.SecretReferenceSystem { mode = swarmapi.SecretReference_SYSTEM }

LK4D4 · 2016-10-26T18:17:21Z

daemon/cluster/convert/container.go

+	refs := []*types.SecretReference{}
+	for _, s := range sr {
+		var mode types.SecretReferenceMode
+		switch s.Mode {


maybe make convertSecretReferenceMode function

LK4D4 · 2016-10-26T18:18:43Z

daemon/cluster/convert/secret.go

+	}
+
+	// Meta
+	secret.Version.Index = s.Meta.Version.Index


I think you can embed Version and Spec in structure initialization

LK4D4 · 2016-10-26T18:18:59Z

daemon/cluster/convert/secret.go

+
+// SecretFromGRPC converts a grpc Secret to a Secret.
+func SecretFromGRPC(s *swarmapi.Secret) swarmtypes.Secret {
+	logrus.Debugf("%+v", s)


Maybe add some words here.

LK4D4 · 2016-10-26T18:20:45Z

daemon/cluster/convert/secret.go

+
+// SecretSpecToGRPC converts Secret to a grpc Secret.
+func SecretSpecToGRPC(s swarmtypes.SecretSpec) (swarmapi.SecretSpec, error) {
+	spec := swarmapi.SecretSpec{


just return this here

LK4D4 · 2016-10-26T18:22:43Z

daemon/cluster/executor/container/attachment.go

@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ import (
 	executorpkg "github.com/docker/docker/daemon/cluster/executor"
 	"github.com/docker/swarmkit/api"
 	"golang.org/x/net/context"
+	"src/github.com/docker/swarmkit/agent/exec"


wrong import

LK4D4 · 2016-10-26T18:26:24Z

daemon/container_operations_unix.go

+			return fmt.Errorf("error creating secret mount path: %s", err)
+		}
+
+		logrus.Debugf("injecting secret: name=%s path=%s", s.Name, fPath)


you can use WithFields for creating such structured messages :)

LK4D4 · 2016-10-26T18:27:25Z

daemon/container_operations_unix.go

+
+	// create tmpfs
+	if err := os.MkdirAll(localMountPath, 0700); err != nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("error creating secret local mount path: %s", err)


we have pkg/errors vendored now. Would you mind to use errors.Wrap{f} in such cases?

LK4D4 · 2016-10-26T18:28:19Z

daemon/container_operations_unix.go

@@ -175,6 +176,41 @@ func (daemon *Daemon) setupIpcDirs(c *container.Container) error {
 	return nil
 }

+func (daemon *Daemon) setupSecretDir(c *container.Container) error {


shouldn't this func cleanup on error? I mean like unmount and remove secrets dir.

ok i added a defer func that should cleanup. ptal thx!

LK4D4 · 2016-10-26T18:38:30Z

daemon/secrets.go

+
+func (daemon *Daemon) SetContainerSecrets(name string, secrets []*containertypes.ContainerSecret) error {
+	if !secretsSupported() {
+		logrus.Warn("secrets are not supported on this platform")


Sounds like this warning will be logged on each container run. Is that right?

cpuguy83

Having issues making this work:

$ echo foo=bar | docker secret create test
$ docker service create --name test --secret test:/foo busybox top
$ docker exec <cid> ls /foo

/foo does not exist.

I have concerns on supporting the format <name>:<target> which puts us in the same sticky situation we are in with -v on run.

cpuguy83 · 2016-10-26T19:02:18Z

api/server/router/swarm/cluster_routes.go

+	rawVersion := r.URL.Query().Get("version")
+	version, err := strconv.ParseUint(rawVersion, 10, 64)
+	if err != nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("Invalid secret version '%s': %s", rawVersion, err.Error())


Can we use api/errors with something like a BadRequest?

Also lower-case errors

thx -- i was following the convention. i'll update

cpuguy83 · 2016-10-26T19:04:16Z

api/server/router/swarm/cluster_routes.go

+
+	id := vars["id"]
+	if err := sr.backend.UpdateSecret(id, version, secret); err != nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("Error updating secret: %s", err)


Would this only ever be an internal error? If not I'd not wrap the error here and make sure the backend provides a sufficient message.

cpuguy83 · 2016-10-26T19:38:40Z

cli/command/service/parse.go

+)
+
+// parseSecretString parses the requested secret and returns the secret name
+// and target.  Expects format SECRET_NAME:TARGET


👎
This format is nice in the happy case, but in the long run is a nightmare.

ok. do you have an alternative?

I think @stevvooe once suggested the unicode arrow ;)

But seriously, I think the code here has the right approach. The secret name and target need to be specified adjacent to each other instead of using separate options. We could use key-value pairs, but I think that would be really ugly and unintuitive.

@cpuguy83 @aaronlehmann what about something like

--secret ssh-dev,target=id_rsa,uid=1000,gid=1000,mode=0600

any thoughts on the above @cpuguy83 @aaronlehmann ?

I would say in general it looks good.
I think ssh-dev should be source=ssh-dev to match --mount (big discussion on whether to allow the positional syntax from that PR).

Only question I'd ask is, how does this work with if/when an alternative secrets backend is supported (e.g. Vault). Would the current options work on all backends/platforms? Can Windows support this?

Not a big fan of source=. It complicates the normal case where all you want to specify is a source, which now involves key/value pairs. --secret-add source=secretname doesn't look like a particularly friendly CLI to me.

What about keeping the key/value pairs as the general case, but allowing a shorthand of --secret-add secretname (i.e. if no = is found, take the argument as the source)? I'm not completely sure I like this, but I think I like it more than forcing key/value syntax for this argument.

Find by me.

But mixing positional and k/v in the same spec (e.g. --secret-add secretname,target=mysecret) not so much.

I agree with @aaronlehmann's suggestion. We should have a shorthand of --secret-add secretname

cpuguy83 · 2016-10-26T19:48:29Z

daemon/container_operations_unix.go

+	}
+
+	// remount secrets ro
+	if err := mount.Mount("tmpfs", localMountPath, "tmpfs", "remount,ro"); err != nil {


we decided to not use ramfs since the swarmkit storage swaps to disk so we don't gain anything by using ramfs.

makes sense

@ehazlett does this mean secrets are effectively stored plain-text on disk?

For the container they are stored in tmpfs (in memory). They are encrypted at rest in the Swarm storage.

ok awesome, thanks @ehazlett 😁

cpuguy83 · 2016-10-26T19:50:41Z

container/container_unix.go

@@ -259,6 +266,26 @@ func (container *Container) IpcMounts() []Mount {
 	return mounts
 }

+// SecretMounts returns the list of Secret mounts
+func (container *Container) SecretMounts() []Mount {
+	var mounts []Mount


Why do we have a slice but only ever append one thing to it?

it was to add more in the future but good point. i'll remove the slice.

cpuguy83 · 2016-10-26T19:52:10Z

container/container_unix.go

-const DefaultSHMSize int64 = 67108864
+const (
+	DefaultSHMSize           int64 = 67108864
+	containerSecretMountPath       = "/run/secrets"


doesn't match the doc string

cpuguy83 · 2016-10-26T19:55:35Z

container/container.go

-	ExecCommands           *exec.Store                `json:"-"`
+	HostConfig             *containertypes.HostConfig        `json:"-"` // do not serialize the host config in the json, otherwise we'll make the container unportable
+	ExecCommands           *exec.Store                       `json:"-"`
+	Secrets                []*containertypes.ContainerSecret `json:"-"` // do not serialize


Don't like that we're shoving secrets in here purely for indexing, but I guess we are doing it for other things as well right now.

cpuguy83 · 2016-10-26T20:11:58Z

daemon/cluster/secrets.go

+	ctx, cancel := c.getRequestContext()
+	defer cancel()
+
+	r, err := c.node.client.GetSecret(ctx, &swarmapi.GetSecretRequest{SecretID: id})


Doesn't work when a name is specified.

Nor prefixes

correct. swarmkit only supports getting by id atm

swarmkit can filter by name or name prefix using the ListSecrets RPC. This is the same as other object types like service and node - Get is always by ID.

So we could implement a GetSecretByName that effectively uses ListSecrets with a name filter under it.

cpuguy83 · 2016-10-26T20:21:49Z

Also sorry, I added some code review in there though it's still in design review.
I think overall the design is mostly good except for the format.

The other item would be only supporting stdin... but that's probably not a big deal... who knows for Windows though.

cpuguy83 · 2016-10-26T20:22:17Z

Tests are also failing because of the linter.

ehazlett · 2016-10-26T20:35:07Z

lint issues should be fixed.

@cpuguy83 the design was to have the SECRET_NAME:TARGET_NAME but I'm not tied to it. The intended use (sorry for the lack of docs atm) was to not have a path for the target so we can have a simple directory instead of nesting. The latest update checks and returns an error if a path is specified.

cpuguy83 · 2016-10-26T20:39:04Z

Aha! It goes in /run/secrets of course... This makes sense. I think I'm ok with the format in that case. It could still end up tricky though.

ehazlett · 2016-10-26T20:41:04Z

@cpuguy83 I was possibly thinking something like the more granular mount syntax in the future but it might be too much for now. idk

LK4D4 · 2016-10-26T21:37:12Z

@ehazlett looks like vendor needs to be updated.

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-26T22:05:32Z

api/types/swarm/secret.go

+type Secret struct {
+	ID string
+	Meta
+	Spec       *SecretSpec `json:",omitempty"`


Spec should not be a pointer.

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-26T22:06:03Z

api/types/swarm/secret.go

+	Meta
+	Spec       *SecretSpec `json:",omitempty"`
+	Digest     string      `json:",omitempty"`
+	SecretSize int64       `json:",omitempty"`


We probably don't want omitempty for SecretSize. Probably not for any of these fields, actually.

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-26T22:08:05Z

api/types/swarm/secret.go

+
+type SecretSpec struct {
+	Annotations
+	Data []byte `json:",omitempty"`


Again, probably don't want to omit the Data field if the secret is zero-length.

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-26T22:21:17Z

cli/command/service/opts.go

+		sec = append(sec, &swarm.SecretReference{
+			SecretID: s,
+			Mode:     swarm.SecretReferenceFile,
+			Target:   "",


I suppose we still need to add the ability for the user to specify a custom target?

There seems to be an inconsistency between service create and service update. Shouldn't they both take secrets in the format that specifies a name and target (i.e. use parseSecrets)?

ya we actually don't even need this because i set it outside in order to do the lookup. good catch thx!

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-26T22:39:11Z

cli/command/service/parse.go

+	tokens := strings.Split(secretString, ":")
+
+	secretName := strings.TrimSpace(tokens[0])
+	targetName := ""


targetName = secretName to avoid the else case below?

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-26T22:41:43Z

cli/command/service/parse.go

+
+	foundSecrets := make(map[string]*swarmtypes.Secret)
+	for _, secret := range secrets {
+		foundSecrets[secret.Spec.Annotations.Name] = &secret


This looks wrong. It will set every map value to point to the same iterator. Just make the map values secret IDs instead of pointers to secrets. That will make things simpler.

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-26T22:42:10Z

client/errors.go

+
+// Error returns a string representation of a secretNotFoundError
+func (e secretNotFoundError) Error() string {
+	return fmt.Sprintf("Error: No such secret: %s", e.name)


no such secret: %s

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-26T22:59:13Z

container/container_unix.go

+		}
+	}
+
+	return mount


Is it correct to return an empty Mount structure in this case? I see that it's unconditionally appended to a slice in createSpec.

I had this as a nil check before; i'll switch back

vdemeester

Few questions :

What should happen if I remove a secret that is mounted ? Right now it's still available in the container, that might be by design, just asking 👼.

On service create, there is a problem if I specify multiple secrets (using --secret) ; I get the same content for all the secrets.

$ docker service create sec1 <<EOF
A
EOF
$ docker secret create sec2 <<EOF
B
EOF
$ docker service create --name test --secret sec1 --secret sec2 busybox top
# Task container is 2b66…
$ docker exec -ti 2b66 sh
$ ls /run/secrets
sec1 sec2
$ cat /run/secrets/sec1
B
# should have be A
$ cat /run/secrets/sec2
B

On service update, it doesn't seems it updates the secret or re-create the task. Not sure what is the preferred way to go (I would think re-create the container), but as of now, it doesn't have any effect. — just saw the checkbox, nevermind 👼

$ docker service ps test 
NAME                              IMAGE    NODE          DESIRED STATE  CURRENT STATE           ERROR
test.1.imutqdjh4k2cm24e90mpkt9vh  busybox  4c780a8f3912  Running        Running 37 seconds ago
$ docker secret create sec3 <<EOF
C
EOF
$ docker service update --secret sec3 test
test
$ docker service ps test
NAME                              IMAGE    NODE          DESIRED STATE  CURRENT STATE          ERROR
test.1.imutqdjh4k2cm24e90mpkt9vh  busybox  4c780a8f3912  Running        Running 7 minutes ago
$ docker exec -ti 2b6 sh
$ ls /run/secrets
sec1 sec2

For docker secret subcommands (like rm or inspect), should we support prefixes (like on all container subcommands) and names ? right now it just supports the full ID.

Other than that, it looks good 👼 🐸

vdemeester · 2016-10-26T20:07:47Z

api/server/router/swarm/cluster.go

@@ -40,5 +40,10 @@ func (sr *swarmRouter) initRoutes() {
 		router.NewPostRoute("/nodes/{id:.*}/update", sr.updateNode),
 		router.NewGetRoute("/tasks", sr.getTasks),
 		router.NewGetRoute("/tasks/{id:.*}", sr.getTask),
+		router.NewGetRoute("/secrets", sr.getSecrets),
+		router.NewPostRoute("/secrets/create", sr.createSecret),


This could be router.NewPostRoute("/secrets", sr.createSecret) 👼

Ya I was trying to follow the convention but I like /secrets better. thx!

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-27T00:30:17Z

On service create, there is a problem if I specify multiple secrets (using --secret) ; I get the same content for all the secrets.

That's probably because of this: https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/27794/files#r85236096

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-27T01:03:00Z

daemon/cluster/executor/container/executor.go

@@ -18,6 +18,10 @@ type executor struct {
 	backend executorpkg.Backend
 }

+type secretProvider interface {
+	Get(secretID string) *api.Secret
+}


This looks like it's unused.

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-27T01:13:57Z

daemon/container_operations_unix.go

+				log.Errorf("error cleaning up secret mount: %s", err)
+			}
+		}
+	}(setupErr)


Args to a deferred function are evaluated at the time of the defer statement, so this won't work as expected.

i'm using a named return now so i think this should work. PTAL

It still looks wrong. You shouldn't pass setupErr as an argument to the deferred function. You should just let it capture the variable from the outer scope.

you are correct. thx

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-27T01:14:37Z

daemon/container_operations_unix.go

+
+	// create tmpfs
+	if err := os.MkdirAll(localMountPath, 0700); err != nil {
+		setupErr = errors.Wrap(err, "error creating secret local mount path")


Is it correct to continue if the directory can't be created?

nope -- i need to rework the cleanup

aaronlehmann · 2016-10-27T01:14:52Z

daemon/container_operations_unix.go

+		setupErr = errors.Wrap(err, "error creating secret local mount path")
+	}
+	if err := mount.Mount("tmpfs", localMountPath, "tmpfs", "nodev"); err != nil {
+		setupErr = errors.Wrap(err, "unable to setup secret mount")


Is it correct to continue if the mount fails?

ehazlett · 2016-11-14T21:54:31Z

We need a way to define the secret on the container. Since we can't call the secret store direct from the engine side I chose to implement it here and have the cluster define it as discussed during design.

ContainerSecret does repeat most of the SecretReference however it also needs data. I chose to keep them separate instead of mix the types between swarm and the container types. I could embed if that's better but I felt it made a clear separation. This is the same for SecretRequestOption. This is similar to things like ContainerAttachConfig and ContainerAttachOptions where there are two fields different.

stevvooe · 2016-11-14T22:11:03Z

@ehazlett ContainerSecret mixes the concepts of reference and secret.

In general, these types should be isomorphic to swarm types. We can share types with swarm types, just fine. We do this for mounts.

xeor · 2016-11-16T22:59:48Z

Is the design of the secret management allowing for future features like one-time-read options? Or is the design not allowing that kind of extensions of dynamically adding/removing secrets in a secure way?

stevvooe · 2016-11-16T23:18:28Z

Is the design of the secret management allowing for future features like one-time-read options? Or is the design not allowing that kind of extensions of dynamically adding/removing secrets in a secure way?

The design of the secrets functionality in this PR does not preclude such future features. Many of the existing features were designed with these use cases in mind for the future.

thaJeztah · 2016-11-16T23:21:56Z

opened #28516 for tracking the remaining review comments

- `cassandra`: 3.0.10 - `docker`: 1.13.0-rc1 (currently failing the `override-cmd` test; see moby/moby#28329), `docker daemon` -> `dockerd` (docker-library/docker#31) - `drupal`: 8.2.3 - `java`: alpine 7.121.2.6.8-r0, 8.111.14-r0 - `openjdk`: alpine 7.121.2.6.8-r0, 8.111.14-r0 - `python`: 3.6.0b3 (docker-library/python#157), pip 9.0.1 (docker-library/python#154) - `ruby`: 2.3.2, 2.2.6 - `tomcat`: 6.0.48, 7.0.73, 8.0.39, 8.5.8, 9.0.0.M13 - `wordpress`: add `WORDPRESS_*_FILE` support for passing parameters via files especially for [Docker secrets](moby/moby#27794) (docker-library/wordpress#186)

RRAlex · 2016-11-18T15:29:36Z

@jefflill You might also want to make sure your second tmpfs is mounted securely, with rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,size=1m
Hopefully all of those can also be passed to a service (I didn't verify).

Short term, I also wish the /run/secrets/ could have an option to simply o-rwx the directory (since it's read-only and we can't chmod it).
That could be simpler & easier to implement, until we get secrets that are read once, etc.
A root user could set things up before dropping its privileges (to a user), for example...

That said, read once sounds a lot better... :)

jefflill · 2016-11-18T19:49:21Z

Actually, I've verified that opts/mount: add tmpfs-specific options
#28150 works in recent 1.13 builds.

This is super clean now.

--Jeff

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Alexandre Guédon [email protected]
wrote:

@jefflill https://github.com/jefflill You might also want to make sure
your second tmpfs is mounted securely, with rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,size=1m
Hopefully all of those can also be passed to a service (I didn't verify).

Short term, I also wish the /run/secrets/ could have an option to simply
o-rwx the directory (since it's read-only and we can't chmod it).
That could be simpler & easier to implement, until we get secrets that are
read once, etc.
A root user could set things up before dropping its privileges (to a
user), for example...

That said, read once sounds a lot better... :)

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#27794 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AErlj8NdrY9xZ3ZpKoOPpVk3chpi6wtmks5q_cSXgaJpZM4Khe0a
.

shouze · 2016-12-14T20:24:51Z

@ehazlett wow it's pretty cool ! Was working on a vault integration of our own when I've seen that.

As the feature comes from swarmkit, could we imagine to have it in non swarm docker use (docker for mac, docker engine)?

And what about docker-compose support? There's already a discussion opened about secrets docker/compose#1534

To wum up, I would be very pleased to be able to use secrets on my local machine/ci/... the same way than on the big cluster ;)

thaJeztah · 2016-12-14T20:34:24Z

@shouze this all works on docker for mac, but currently only for "services" (so if you have swarm mode enabled (docker swarm init). Future enhancements to allow it to be used for docker run, and docker build may be coming in future releases.

shouze · 2016-12-14T20:41:30Z

@thaJeztah ho nice! I've just tested it, very very nice ;) I guess that when enhancements in docker run/build will come it will also be integrated with docker compose?

thaJeztah · 2016-12-14T20:46:11Z

@shouze docker-compose is a separate project, but I think that would be a reasonable assumption 😄 FWIW; @ehazlett started on a PR for build-time secrets; #28079, but it needed more time so couldn't make it into 1.13; for 1.14 it will probably need a rewrite, so it was closed in the meantime.

ghost · 2016-12-21T15:53:21Z

Hi,

Sorry for the question but does the secrets are stored in an encrypted way ?

thaJeztah · 2016-12-21T17:25:23Z

@nasskach yes; see the (work in progress) documentation; https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io/pull/568/files

GordonTheTurtle added the status/0-triage label Oct 26, 2016

tiborvass added status/1-design-review and removed status/0-triage labels Oct 26, 2016

icecrime assigned vdemeester and crosbymichael Oct 26, 2016

LK4D4 suggested changes Oct 26, 2016

View reviewed changes

cpuguy83 requested changes Oct 26, 2016

View reviewed changes

ehazlett force-pushed the secrets branch from 65ea4dd to 26a8c3d Compare October 26, 2016 20:49

aaronlehmann reviewed Oct 26, 2016

View reviewed changes

vdemeester added this to the 1.13.0 milestone Oct 26, 2016

vdemeester requested changes Oct 26, 2016

View reviewed changes

vdemeester added the area/swarm label Oct 27, 2016

aaronlehmann reviewed Oct 27, 2016

View reviewed changes

thaJeztah mentioned this pull request Nov 16, 2016

[1.13] address remaining review comments for secrets API #28516

Closed

icecrime mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2016

[UX] Guidelines for short/long syntax flags #28527

Closed

3 tasks

thaJeztah mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2016

problem with publishing ports in swarm mode - works (sometimes) only on worker nodes, not on manager, no load balancing #24310

Closed

ehazlett mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2016

Fix target reference secrets #28550

Closed

tianon mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2016

Update docker-library images docker-library/official-images#2360

Merged

ehazlett mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2016

Fix target reference secrets and container secret store #28556

Merged

glennc mentioned this pull request Nov 18, 2016

Docker secrets support aspnet/Configuration#556

Closed

theinrichs mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2016

Secret Management rancher/rancher#1269

Closed

thaJeztah mentioned this pull request Nov 29, 2016

Secrets: write-up best practices, do's and don'ts, roadmap #13490

Open

albers mentioned this pull request Dec 4, 2016

Add bash completion for secret management #29109

Merged

thaJeztah mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2017

Continuation of the docker secret storage feature #6697

Closed

afolarin mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2017

How to manage secret parameters within docker RADAR-base/RADAR-Docker#19

Closed

ehazlett mentioned this pull request Feb 1, 2017

Build Secrets #30637

Closed

thaJeztah mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2017

Proposal: mount one time use encrypted volume #25352

Open

grgrzybek mentioned this pull request Feb 9, 2021

External secret vault support [PAXJDBC-112] ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.jdbc#176

Closed

thaJeztah mentioned this pull request Oct 20, 2024

daemon: remove configsSupported, secretsSupported utilities #48703

Merged

Secret Management #27794

Secret Management #27794

Conversation

ehazlett commented Oct 26, 2016 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cpuguy83 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

diogomonica Nov 3, 2016 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cpuguy83 commented Oct 26, 2016 • edited Loading

cpuguy83 commented Oct 26, 2016

ehazlett commented Oct 26, 2016

cpuguy83 commented Oct 26, 2016

ehazlett commented Oct 26, 2016

LK4D4 commented Oct 26, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

aaronlehmann Oct 26, 2016 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vdemeester left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

aaronlehmann commented Oct 27, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ehazlett commented Oct 26, 2016 •

edited

Loading

diogomonica Nov 3, 2016 •

edited

Loading

cpuguy83 commented Oct 26, 2016 •

edited

Loading

aaronlehmann Oct 26, 2016 •

edited

Loading

vdemeester left a comment •

edited

Loading