this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
26 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

52365 readers
1503 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
26
Assign privileged port to caddy running with rootless podman (programming.dev)
submitted 3 days ago by SinTan1729@programming.dev to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/39212874

I recently migrated my services from rootful docker to rootless podman quadlets. It went smoothly, since nothing I use actually needs to be rootful. Well, except for caddy. It needs to be able to attach to privileged ports 80 and 443.

My current way to bypass it is using HAProxy running as root and forwarding connections using proxy protocol. (Tried to use firewalld but that makes the client IP opaque to caddy.) But that adds an extra layer, which means extra latency. It's perfectly usable, but I'd like to get rid of it, if possible.

I'm willing to run caddy in rootful podman if needed. But from what I understand, that means I can't have it in the same rootless network as my other containers. I really don't wanna open most of my containers' ports, so that's not an option.

So, I'm asking whether any of these three things are possible.

  1. Use firewalld to forward ports to caddy without obscuring the client's IP.
  2. Make rootful caddy share a network with other rootless containers.
  3. Assign privileged ports to caddy somehow, in rootless mode. (I know there's a way to make all these ports unprivileged, but is it possible to only assign these 2 ports as unprivileged?)

Or maybe there's a fourth way that I'm missing. I feel like this is a common enough setup, that there must be a way to do it. Any pointers are appreciated, thanks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It seems that I'd still need to modify net.ipv4.ip_unprivileged_port_start=80 in sysctl, which I don't want to do. If I do it, the socket isn't even strictly necessary.

[–] El_Quentinator@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

TBH I haven't played with passing caddy's podman network to other containers, mine is a simple reverse proxy to other standalone containers but not directly connected via podman run --network (or quadlet network). In my scenario I can at least confirm that net.ipv4.ip_unprivileged_port_start doesn't need to be modified, the only annoyance is that I cannot use a systemd user service, even though the end process doesn't run as root.

EDIT: Actually looking at the examples a bit more closely I think the primary difference with my setup is that the systemd socket is started with systemd --user which thus requires the sysctl change, whereas I'm not using a systemd user service, relying instead on User=some-non-root-user to use rootless podman, but requiring root privileges to manage the systemd service.