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

Different permissions for different containers #91

Open
lonix1 opened this issue Jun 15, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Different permissions for different containers #91

lonix1 opened this issue Jun 15, 2023 · 4 comments

Comments

@lonix1
Copy link

lonix1 commented Jun 15, 2023

I know how to use this with traefik. I've found some samples how to use it with portainer.

But on a single server I'm using both traefik and portainer. That means I must expose many endpoints (because portainer wants them), and traefik therefore sees them too. From the samples I've seen, that includes the very powerful POST.

Is this the correct approach - or can I set different permissions for different containers?

If not currently possible, please consider this a feature request?

@lonix1
Copy link
Author

lonix1 commented Jun 15, 2023

If not possible, a workaround is to have one tecnativa container for traefik and one for portainer.

But that feels like massive overkill. Running docker stats shows the tecnativa container takes only a few megs of RAM - which is impressive given there's an entire proxy embedded in there - but under load I doubt it would fare well. Anyone have any insights into this from a production system?

@sammcj
Copy link
Contributor

sammcj commented Oct 8, 2023

This would be really useful, I have some containers where it's absolutely fine for anything to restart them, but others where I wouldn't want to allow that.

@hell-g
Copy link

hell-g commented Nov 5, 2023

I am in the same situation and am trying to solve this with several instances of the docker-socket-proxy. Unfortunately, I am only able to access the Docker socket with the original instance of docker-socket-proxy. All the other instances fail to access the socket and therefore, the containers behind it cannot fulfill their purpose.
Can you give me a hint how to configure it to have several instances of the docker-socket-proxy running in parallel?
Obviously, having the possibility to configure access to different endpoints for different containers within one proxy instance would be best. But for now a workaround would be great.
Thanks a lot!

@polarathene
Copy link

For those asking for such feature, it'd probably be useful to suggest how that might look config wise if it existed.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants