You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
[Bug]: Operator images not using OCI format for attestation #10600
I have searched for an existing issue, and could not find anything. I believe this is a new bug.
I have read the troubleshooting guide
I have read the troubleshooting guide and I think this is a new bug.
I am running a supported version of CloudNativePG
I have read the troubleshooting guide and I think this is a new bug.
Contact Details
No response
Version
1.29 (latest patch)
What version of Kubernetes are you using?
1.35
What is your Kubernetes environment?
Self-managed: kind (evaluation)
How did you install the operator?
YAML manifest
What happened?
The images are currently having the attestation (SBOM basically) without the right artifactType in the manifest making them undetectable by tools like GUAC
The output uses type=image without explicitly enabling OCI media types. Per the Docker documentation on OCI media types, when attestations are stored without oci-mediatypes=true, they use Docker-specific media types instead of standard OCI artifactType descriptors — which is what makes them invisible to tools like GUAC that look for the OCI referrers API / artifactType field.
The fix would likely involve adding oci-mediatypes=true to the output configuration:
BuildKit's default image exporter does not set artifactType or an OCI 1.1 Referrers subject on attestation manifests. The PR adds oci-artifact=true, so SBOM and provenance attestations now carry both and are discoverable through the Referrers API.
GUAC was the example mentioned here, but it has a separate limitation tracked upstream at guacsec/guac#1370: its OCI collector filters Referrers descriptors by an allowlist that does not include the BuildKit attestation manifest type, so it drops them regardless of how the manifest is shaped. That is for the GUAC project to fix; nothing on the cnpg side will help.
Yes, in general it would be appreciated to have clearer issue descriptions, with ways to detect the current problem and how to determine the success of the PR. This fosters collaboration, facilitates buy-in, and reduces the effort in review and approval.
Activity
dosubot commentedon May 3, 2026
This looks like a valid finding. Looking at the current
docker-bake.hcl, the output and attestation configuration is:The
outputusestype=imagewithout explicitly enabling OCI media types. Per the Docker documentation on OCI media types, when attestations are stored withoutoci-mediatypes=true, they use Docker-specific media types instead of standard OCIartifactTypedescriptors — which is what makes them invisible to tools like GUAC that look for the OCI referrers API /artifactTypefield.The fix would likely involve adding
oci-mediatypes=trueto the output configuration:This should cause BuildKit to produce attestation manifests with the proper OCI
artifactTypeset, making them discoverable by OCI-native tooling.To reply, just mention @dosu.
Share context across your team and agents. Try Dosu.
chore: setup OCI types to true in docker-backe.hcl
chore: enable OCI artifact type for attestation manifests (#10601)
chore: enable OCI artifact type for attestation manifests (#10601)
chore: enable OCI artifact type for attestation manifests (#10601)
chore: enable OCI artifact type for attestation manifests (#10601)
mnencia commentedon May 5, 2026
Fixed by #10601.
BuildKit's default image exporter does not set
artifactTypeor an OCI 1.1 Referrerssubjecton attestation manifests. The PR addsoci-artifact=true, so SBOM and provenance attestations now carry both and are discoverable through the Referrers API.GUAC was the example mentioned here, but it has a separate limitation tracked upstream at guacsec/guac#1370: its OCI collector filters Referrers descriptors by an allowlist that does not include the BuildKit attestation manifest type, so it drops them regardless of how the manifest is shaped. That is for the GUAC project to fix; nothing on the cnpg side will help.
gbartolini commentedon May 5, 2026
Yes, in general it would be appreciated to have clearer issue descriptions, with ways to detect the current problem and how to determine the success of the PR. This fosters collaboration, facilitates buy-in, and reduces the effort in review and approval.