One of the biggest flaws in Docker’s design is that it wasn’t created with IPv6 in mind. Out of the box Docker
assigns each container a private IPv4 address, and they won’t be able to reach IPv6-only services. While incoming
connections might work, the containers won’t know the correct remote IP address which can cause problems for some
applications. This situation is obviously suboptimal in the current day and age. It’s a bit like not supporting
HTTPS on a website – you might not have any issues because of it immediately, but you’re fighting against the
currents of progress and are making life worse for your users.
Thankfully, it’s now relatively easy to make Docker behave a lot nicer. The docker-ipv6nat project has been around since 2016, and uses an
IPv6 overlay network and some iptables magic to route traffic to and from containers in a sensible fashion. It
uses NAT to emulate the behaviour Docker employs for IPv4 traffic; while using NAT with IPv6 is an anathema, I
think it makes sense for containers. You could give each container a publicly routable IPv6 address, but that
brings with it a lot of headaches: you’re basically going to be forced to implement service discovery and some
kind of DNS management to deal with the fact that your containers will be popping up on randomly assigned IP
addresses. That is completely overkill for people running a small number of services on one or two physical
boxes; and if it’s not overkill for you then you’re probably already looking at more complicated orchestration
solutions like Kubernetes.
More recently, similar functionality has been built into the Docker daemon itself. You can now edit the config file to enable ipv6 and each container will be
assigned an address in the range specified when it uses the default bridge network. This gives more-or-less the
same functionality of docker-ipv6nat – you lose a little flexibility as you can’t disable IPv6 on the default
bridge, but that’s a very worthy trade for having the functionality built-in.
So far this all seems very simple. Hardly worthy of being called an “adventure”. Enter stage left: the wicked
witch of destination address selection…
Reproducible builds are builds which you are able to reproduce
byte-for-byte, given the same source input. Your initial reaction to that statement might be “Aren’t nearly all
builds ‘reproducible builds’, then? If I give my compiler a source file it will always give me the same binary,
won’t it?” It sounds simple, like it’s something that should just be fundamentally true unless we go out
of our way to break it, but in reality it’s actually quite a challenge. A group of Debian developers have been
working on reproducible packages for the best part of a decade and while they’ve made fantastic progress,
Debian still isn’t reproducible. Before we talk about why it’s
a hard problem, let’s take a minute to ponder why it’s worth that much effort.
On supply chain attacks
Suppose you want to run some open-source software. One of the many benefits of open-source software is that
anyone can look at the source and, in theory, spot bugs or malicious code. Some projects even have sponsored
audits or penetration tests to affirm that the software is safe. But how do you actually deploy that software?
You’re probably not building from source - more likely you’re using a package manager to install a pre-built
version, or downloading a binary archive, or running a docker image. How do you know whoever prepared those
binary artifacts did so from an un-doctored copy of the source? How do you know a middle-man hasn’t decided to add malware to the
binaries to make money?
I run a fair number of services as docker containers. Recently, I’ve been moving away from pre-built images
pulled from Docker Hub in favour of those I’ve hand-crafted myself. If you’re thinking “that sounds like a lot of
effort”, you’re right. It also comes with a number of advantages, though, and has been a fairly fun journey.
The problems with Docker Hub and its images
For the last few years, I’ve been getting increasingly unhappy with Docker Hub itself. Docker-the-technology
is wonderful, but Docker-the-company has been making some rather large missteps. The biggest and most impactful
of these has been introducing “pull rate” limits. At the time of writing, if you want to just pull a public image
without logging in then you are limited to 100 pulls every 6 hours. If you log in then you’re limited to 200
pulls per 6 hours, but it’s account wide. This might seem like a big enough number, but I repeatedly hit it and
there is no way to actually audit what is causing it. I have various containers that may all pull images at
arbitrary times (e.g. continuous integration build agents), and the only information you get back from Docker Hub
is the number of pulls remaining.
User stories are a staple of most agile methodologies. You’d be hard-pressed to find an experienced software
developer that’s not come across them at some point in their career. In case you haven’t, they look something
As a frequent customer,
I want to be able to browse my previous orders,
So that I can quickly re-order products.
They provide a persona (in this case “a frequent customer”), a goal (“browse my previous orders”) and a reason
(“so that I can quickly re-order products”). This fictitious user story would probably rank among one of the
better ones I’ve seen. More typically you end up with something like:
As a user,
I want to be able to login,
So that I can browse while logged in.
This doesn’t really provide a persona or any proper reasoning. It’s just a straight-forward task pretending to
be a user story. If this is written in an issue then it provides no extra information over one that simply says
“Allow users to login”. In fact, because it’s expressed so awkwardly I’d argue that it’s worse.
For the last year and a bit, I’ve been using a SteelSeries Arctis Pro Wireless Headset for
gaming and talking to friends. It’s a fine headset, but because there’s an always-on receiver there’s no way to
detect if the headset is turned on or not from the desktop.
Whenever I start using the headset, I set my desktop’s sound to go to the headset, and then when I stop using
the headset I set it to go back to speakers. It doesn’t take more than a second, but some days I might put the
headset on a dozen times as I’m on calls, or if it’s noisy outside, etc. That means it’s probably worth at least a few hours of my time trying to automate it.
At first, I hoped I’d be able to tell from the state of the USB device whether there was a headset connected
but nothing at all changed when flipping it on and off. Then I went hunting for existing open source tools that
might work with it and found that while people have reverse engineered many of the older Arctis headsets, no one
has done the same for the Pro Wireless. I finished off with a search to see if anyone had documented the wire
protocol even if there was no nice open source software to go with it; I came up short there, too. Looks like I’d
have to do it myself.