Recommend different build/runtime user ids #231
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Signed-off-by: Sambhav Kothari <skothari44@bloomberg.net>
| - The image config's `Label` field has the label `io.buildpacks.stack.id` set to the stack ID. | ||
| - The image config's `Label` field has the label `io.buildpacks.stack.mixins` set to a JSON array containing mixin names for each mixin applied to the image. | ||
| - The image config's `Env` field has the environment variable `PATH` set to a valid set of paths or explicitly set to empty (`PATH=`). | ||
|
|
||
| The platform SHOULD ensure that: | ||
|
|
||
| - The image config's `User` field is set to a user with a **DIFFERENT** user [†](README.md#operating-system-conventions)UID/[‡](README.md#operating-system-conventions)SID as the build image. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to say anything about the group ID?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I purposely left it out since the RFC recommended they could either be the same as the build stack or different depending on operator use cases, which seemed like too loose to go into the platform spec and instead maybe should go in the docs for operators?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the RFC it's a "recommendation" which to me means we should be using "SHOULD" vs. "MUST".
Suggested change
| - The image config's `User` field is set to a user with a **DIFFERENT** user [†](README.md#operating-system-conventions)UID/[‡](README.md#operating-system-conventions)SID as the build image. | |
| - The image config's `User` field is SHOULD be set to a user with a **DIFFERENT** user [†](README.md#operating-system-conventions)UID/[‡](README.md#operating-system-conventions)SID as the build image. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The whole set of clauses here are under a SHOULD (Line 189/190) which is why I left it out. :)
hone
approved these changes
Jun 23, 2021
sclevine
approved these changes
Jun 23, 2021
jabrown85
approved these changes
Jun 23, 2021
jkutner
approved these changes
Jun 28, 2021
ekcasey
approved these changes
Jun 30, 2021
natalieparellano
approved these changes
Jul 6, 2021
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.
Signed-off-by: Sambhav Kothari skothari44@bloomberg.net