ContainerShell supports SCPing files now #7
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Before this update, when you would attempt to SCP a file, you'd get a login shell instead.
With the update, if you have SCP enabled (it's enabled by default) users will be able to copy files onto the host (i.e. not into a container). I didn't see much point making SCP run inside a container, especially because they can disable it completely.
The container sessions are ephemeral, and copying a file is putting state onto the system. It feels like mixing those two will cause a lot of pain to some unsuspecting human when that file isn't there after copying... To me, and I might be wrong, running SCP directly on the host feels like the path of least astonishment, especially when considering a failure scenario.