dit="docker exec -it $@"
Seems more flexible to me. Also, you shouldn't give functions or variables the same names as binaries.
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
15 points (69.2% liked)
Linux
48878 readers
1234 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The "$@" doesn't do that you think it does in an alias. It gets expanded on alias creation.
Actually it works exactly as I intended it to
Not all docker containers contain a shell binary.. You can still propose an issue to moby, the upstream of docker, though.
How do you go inside those containers and poke around then ?
Jokes aside, you create a custom Dockerfile and copy a statically compiled shell binary.
Always wondered why this wasn’t automated, from an ergonomics perspective, a command that lets me open a shell could detect that no shell exists, and then do as you said, without me having to lift a finger. It’s not very unix-y, but it could be a sort of plug-in for Docker CLIs.
It does exist with docker debug.
Note
Docker Debug requires a Pro, Team, or Business subcription.
I don't know if that applies to me but big yikes!
Oh, misses that bit... Seems there is a third party plugin that does something similar.
Now that is more what I had in mind! I’ll definitely be using this, thanks
Generally speaking you shouldn't be poking around running containers. It is rare that I have ever needed to do that. If you want to inspect the contents of an image then tools like dive are helpful. If the container produces some useful output that you might need then put that into a volume, you can then mount that volume to a debug/inspect container to read the files without messing around with the rest of the container.
Shell-less containers are a great security feature - it is extremely hard to get a reverse shell on something that does not have any shell. And if you must have a shell to debug something docker already has a feature for that docker debug which works for shell-less containers as well.
This is an excellent idea. Fortunately you're not the first to have it ;-)
You should look into alias.
Oof freebsd has spoilt me, the equivalent would be appjail login vaultwarden
Side note: how do you like running vaultwarden? Was thinking about using it.
Seems fine used it a few times so far. It works. Very easy to setup. I want to try keepass before I choose. Keepass has a more "foss flavour"
Yeah, that's the same crossroads I'm at. Currently using Proton Pass, and I like it, but it's inherently closed. Security by obscurity is kind of their m.o.
Anything that stops working when I shut off the internet is a hardpass for me