Skip to content

Conversation

@dekobon
Copy link
Collaborator

@dekobon dekobon commented Nov 26, 2025

Proposed changes

Fix #428

  1. New subsection: "Running Unprivileged Container Images"
    - Explains that unprivileged images listen on port 8080 (not 80)
    - Shows correct port mapping: --publish 80:8080
    - Provides alternative mapping: --publish 8080:8080 (avoids requiring privileges on host)
    - Uses example tag: unprivileged-oss-20250718
  2. Kubernetes section note
    - Added clarification that unprivileged images need containerPort: 8080 instead of containerPort: 80
  3. Security context
    - Documented security benefits of unprivileged containers
    - Clarified the distinction between standard OSS (port 80, runs as root) and unprivileged (port 8080, runs as nginx user) variants

Checklist

Before creating a pull request (PR), run through this checklist and mark each as complete:

nshadrin and others added 3 commits November 26, 2025 12:58
Corrected the spelling of 'Uri' to 'URI' for consistency.

(cherry picked from commit 8cac33f)
Signed-off-by: Elijah Zupancic <e.zupancic@f5.com>
Resolves #428

Add dedicated section explaining that unprivileged container images
listen on port 8080 internally (not port 80), as they run as non-root
users and cannot bind to privileged ports.

Changes:
- Add "Running Unprivileged Container Images" subsection with correct
  port mapping examples (80:8080 or 8080:8080)
- Add note in Kubernetes section about containerPort for unprivileged
  images
- Clarify security benefits of unprivileged containers

The standard OSS images continue to use port 80 as they run as root.
Only images tagged with 'unprivileged-oss-*' use port 8080.
@dekobon dekobon requested a review from 4141done November 26, 2025 22:28
@dekobon dekobon requested a review from a team as a code owner November 26, 2025 22:28
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings November 26, 2025 22:28
@github-actions
Copy link

🎉 Thank you for your contribution! It appears you have not yet signed the F5 Contributor License Agreement (CLA), which is required for your changes to be incorporated into an F5 Open Source Software (OSS) project. Please kindly read the F5 CLA and reply on a new comment with the following text to agree:


I have hereby read the F5 CLA and agree to its terms


1 out of 2 committers have signed the CLA.
✅ (dekobon)[https://github.com/dekobon]
@nshadrin
You can retrigger this bot by commenting recheck in this Pull Request. Posted by the CLA Assistant Lite bot.

Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR addresses issue #428 by correcting documentation for unprivileged container images, which listen on port 8080 instead of port 80. The changes clarify port mapping requirements and security benefits for users running NGINX as a non-root user.

  • Added dedicated subsection explaining unprivileged container image usage with correct port mappings
  • Updated Kubernetes configuration documentation to specify port 8080 for unprivileged images
  • Upgraded Node.js version in tooling configuration

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
docs/getting_started.md Added unprivileged container images section with correct port 8080 mappings, updated Kubernetes notes, and fixed typo (Uri → URI)
.tool-versions Updated Node.js from version 20.8.0 to 23.9.0

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@dekobon dekobon changed the title Docs show incorrect port mappings (--publish 80:80) for unprivileged container images docs: incorrect port mappings (--publish 80:80) for unprivileged container images Nov 26, 2025
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

docs list wrong HTTP port for container

3 participants