this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2025
547 points (99.1% liked)

Programmer Humor

26747 readers
2087 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Docker docs:

Docker routes container traffic in the nat table, which means that packets are diverted before it reaches the INPUT and OUTPUT chains that ufw uses. Packets are routed before the firewall rules can be applied, effectively ignoring your firewall configuration.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Static_Rocket@lemmy.world 109 points 1 month ago (3 children)

This was a large part of the reason I switched to rootless podman for everything

[–] False@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Explicitly binding certain ports to the container has a similar effect, no?

[–] doughless@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I still need to allow the ports in my firewall when using podman, even when I bind to 0.0.0.0.

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Also when using a rootfull Podman socket?

[–] doughless@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I haven't tried rootful since I haven't had issues with rootless. I'll have to check on that and get back to you.

[–] doughless@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When running as root, I did not need to add the firewall rule.

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Thanks for checking

[–] Static_Rocket@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It's better than nothing but I hate the additional logs that came from it constantly fighting firewalld.

[–] Kr4u7@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

My problem with podman is the incompatibility with portainer :(

Any recommendations?

[–] giacomo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

cockpit has a podman/container extension you might like.

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It's okay for simple things, but too simple for anything beyond that, IMO. One important issue is that unlike with Portainer you can't edit the container in any way without deleting it and configuring it again, which is quite annoying if you just want to change 1 environment variable (GH Issue). Perhaps they will add a quadlet config tool to cockpit sometime in the future.

[–] giacomo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago

i mean, you can just redeploy the container with the updated variable. thats kinda how they work.

[–] slate@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

CLI and Quadlet? /s but seriously, that's what I use lol

[–] chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 month ago

Quadlets are so nice.

[–] Guilvareux@feddit.uk 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I assume portainer communicates via the docker socket? If so, couldn’t you just point portainer to the podman socket?

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago
[–] pizza_the_hutt@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

This is the way.