Closed
Conversation
Roxedus
approved these changes
Jun 10, 2025
Contributor
|
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. This might be due to missing feedback from OP. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
Member
Author
|
Don't think this is going to be needed because Syft have changed their approach upstream |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description:
Syft 1.27.0 "Harden[s] Container Runtime with Non-Root User", specifically
65532, this breaks our current output as we use mktemp, which creates the folder as the user that runs it. This means we now need to chown the mktemp'd folder so that Syft has permissions to write to it.Benefits of this PR and context:
How Has This Been Tested?
Source / References: